37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 003
CONTENTS
Wednesday, January 31, 2001
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| MEMBER FOR PERTH—MIDDLESEX
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| CHINESE NEW YEAR
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| INTERNATIONAL AID
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| CHARLOTTE BOISJOLI
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| POPULATION OF MADAWASKA—RESTIGOUCHE
|
| Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
| CHARLOTTE BOISJOLI AND PIERRE ROCHE
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1405
| INTERNATIONAL AID
|
| Mr. Gurbax Malhi |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1410
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
| GENIE AWARDS
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| AL WAXMAN
|
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
| GENIE AWARDS
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
1430
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
1435
| Hon. David Collenette |
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1440
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. John Manley |
| INTERNATIONAL AID
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
1445
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1450
| PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1455
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1500
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Governor General's Special Warrant
|
| Mr. John Williams |
1505
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| The Speaker |
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1510
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Notice of Motion
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY
|
| The Speaker |
1515
| PETITIONS
|
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Kidney Research
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1520
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1525
1530
1535
1540
1545
1550
1555
1600
1605
1610
1615
| Amendment
|
1620
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
1650
1655
1700
1705
1710
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1715
1720
1725
1730
| Amendment to the Amendment
|
1735
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1740
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1745
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1750
1755
1800
| Mr. John Herron |
1805
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1810
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1815
1820
1825
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1830
1835
| Mr. Ken Epp |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 003
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, January 31, 2001
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[English]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Thunder
Bay—Atikokan and the hon. member for Mississauga West.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
MEMBER FOR PERTH—MIDDLESEX
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House today to
thank the people of Perth—Middlesex for re-electing me for the
third straight time.
I am proudly grateful to all my constituents for giving me the
chance to serve them once again. I will do everything I can to
be worthy of their trust.
The action plan in the Speech from the Throne will create
opportunity and ensure that all of our citizens are full
participants in our economy and our society. It will help get
children off to a good start, it will help strengthen our
communities and it will strengthen our country. This is what the
Liberal Party is all about.
I wish to reiterate my thanks to the people of Perth—Middlesex.
With their support, I will continue to be a strong voice for
them.
* * *
CHINESE NEW YEAR
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this week marks the first week of the new year of
the Chinese zodiac. The Chinese mystics reveal that the coming
year, the Year of the Snake, holds many wonders in store for all
of us.
This is the year to toot your own horn. By bringing attention
to your talents, you can win advancement and honour that will not
only benefit you but all those you love.
Each new year Canadians of Chinese descent are thankful to be
Canadians. They are thankful for the opportunity to be a part of
this great country. Despite living through tough times in this
country's history, they have survived to become successful in
every facet of Canadian society.
In the Year of the Snake, mankind can expect greater
international and domestic co-operation among governments. On a
personal level, a deepening spirituality will touch us all,
making any efforts to strengthen ties to church and nature
greatly rewarding.
Mr. Speaker, to you and all members of this House, Happy Chinese
New Year.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL AID
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there have been two earthquakes recently, first one in
El Salvador and then another in India. Canada was one of the
first countries to react and to free up funds to organize
emergency support. The Canadian International Development Agency
was on the spot and did an amazing job.
I would like to draw particular attention to the key role played
by the minister, who was in El Salvador and lived through the
earthquake there. Happening to be in Latin America on a mission,
the minister did not hesitate to roll up her sleeves and get
directly involved on site.
* * *
CHARLOTTE BOISJOLI
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the performer, teacher, director and novelist Charlotte Boisjoli
died in Notre-Dame Hospital at the age of 77.
Born in Quebec City in June 1923, Charlotte Boisjoli began her
stage career with the Montreal theatre company Les Compagnons de
Saint-Laurent.
Later on, she and her husband, Fernand Doré, founded the
Compagnie du Masque, which was extremely active a half-century
ago.
She will be remembered for her involvement in numerous stage
productions, as well as a variety of radio and television roles.
Charlotte Boisjoli was a woman who loved to get her teeth into a
good script. Hers was a rare intensity in everything she
undertook, whether in a role or in life and its battles.
May I extend my most sincere condolences to the family and
friends of Madame Boisjoli.
All Quebec salutes this great artist and we can only hope that
her great love of the theatre will live on in those who choose to
follow her career.
* * *
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on November 27, 2000, the Liberal Party of Canada won an
important victory.
Canada's Prime Minister, the leader of our political party,
managed the impressive feat of getting his government elected for
its third consecutive term of office.
The Liberal Party of Canada improved its results in terms of
votes cast, and obtained more votes in Quebec than the Bloc
Quebecois, which lost six members.
We owe this victory to Quebecers, of course, but also to our
Prime Minister, who has been able to rely on the unwavering
support of his wife through these many years of political life.
In yesterday's throne speech, the Prime Minister urged us to
build the Canada of tomorrow on a strong foundation. He also
urged us to build a world-leading Canadian economy.
The Prime Minister has the full support of the Liberal team when
he calls on the people of Canada to share their prosperity, to
fight against exclusion and to help children get the right start
in life.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the role that our
government can play in helping to end one of the greatest human
rights tragedies of our new century. I speak of the Chinese
government's brutal repression of freedom of conscience in
general and of Falun Gong in particular.
The Prime Minister will shortly be departing for China on a team
Canada mission. Team Canada missions are about trade, and I am
sure that every member of the House will agree that free trade
and free enterprise promote human rights. Team Canada missions
are also about aid, and aid to a tyrannical government can be
interpreted by that government as an endorsement of and a subsidy
for its repressive actions.
Canadian aid, and that includes any subsidized or preferential
trade, must be linked to human rights. If the persecution
continues there can be no room for Canada to give aid to China.
This is the message that team Canada must take to China.
* * *
[Translation]
POPULATION OF MADAWASKA—RESTIGOUCHE
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the new member for Madawaska—Restigouche, it is with
great pleasure that I thank my constituents for their trust. I
pledge to do my best to represent them well at all times.
[English]
I stand here today to thank my constituents of
Madawaska—Restigouche who have given me the mandate to represent
them in parliament. It is an honour to serve my constituents and
the country and it is a duty I take seriously.
* * *
[Translation]
CHARLOTTE BOISJOLI AND PIERRE ROCHE
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois must sadly today signal the loss of two of Quebec's
great artists: Charlotte Boisjoli and Pierre Roche.
A total artist, socially committed, but first and foremost an
actress, Ms. Boisjoli was a prime mover in Quebec theatre.
1405
Hers was the voice of Pépinot, to the great delight of children.
She also lent her talents to staging both in theatre and opera.
Pierre Roche was one of Quebec's most prolific
writer-composer-performers. His work and its performance will be
immortal and become one of the jewels of Quebec's rich cultural
heritage.
We thank Ms. Boisjoli and Mr. Roche for giving us moments of
great emotional beauty.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL AID
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Friday a massive earthquake on the
scale of 7.5 ripped through the Indian state of Gujarat, leaving
tens of thousands homeless and killing others. The toll is
13,000 and rising. Thousands of children and families are in
need of emergency aid as they are without food, water, shelter
and medical supplies. The federal government has acted quickly
by providing $3 million in aid.
I encourage the federal government to further its aid for the
devastated region and to help foster international co-operation
in order to establish preventive measures so such natural
disasters would not be as tragic in the future.
I ask my colleagues to join me in encouraging and thanking
Canadians for giving donations to humanitarian organizations to
assist the victims of this terrible tragedy.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's throne speech Canadian
farmers were hoping to hear a federal vision for agriculture.
Instead they were told to move beyond crisis management and find
better uses for their land. They were hoping to hear a
commitment to support farm families and to vigorously fight the
foreign subsidies that have suppressed grain prices and oppressed
the family farm.
Are farmers surprised to have been ignored by the government yet
again? No, they expected it.
Nick Parsons, from Farmington, B.C. in my riding, has once
again brought his combine, Prairie Belle, to Parliament Hill
seeking fairness for Canadian farm families. Last year in a
private meeting, the Prime Minister assured Nick that the
government was doing all it could for western farmers. Yet when
the government had the chance to offer some hope to farm families
in the throne speech, it was not a priority.
The Liberals' agricultural legacy of inaction and indifference
is a disgrace. Yesterday's throne speech provided the latest
evidence of why farmers are now on the endangered species list.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
P.E.I. potato industry is being devastated by unfair United
States trade action. The single biggest threat to our most
important industry is not the potato wart, which was discovered
in October and quickly and appropriately dealt with using sound
science, but the threat of United States protectionism.
As a result of being wrongly banned from the United States
market and having taken action to protect the rest of Canada's
potato industry, P.E.I. producers have suffered extreme losses.
I call upon the federal government to take strong action.
Potatoes originating in states with a record of potato related
diseases should be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny at the
border. Soil testing requirements similar to those required for
us should be instituted for states. Finally, the federal
government must come forward with an assistance program to deal
with the financial hurt.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
yesterday's throne speech we heard about the so-called Liberal
vision of a prosperous nation ready to embrace globalization, but
who really gets to be included in the new high tech Canada of the
future? It is not the 200,000 homeless people sleeping on the
streets tonight, not the 14% of Canadian families who continue to
live in poverty, not the students facing crushing debt loads and
not the thousands of aboriginal peoples dealing with the
hardships of life in our urban cores.
If the throne speech signals the return to Liberal roots of
social justice, then a heck of a lot of people got left behind.
Social justice is not about vague promises or hollow platitudes.
It is not about the Liberal tradition of announcing the same old
patchwork programs over and over. Social justice is about real
inclusion. It is about a national housing strategy, universal
day care, a national grants program and acknowledging the
responsibility to off reserve aboriginal peoples. That is what
the throne speech should have been about.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in yesterday's speech from the throne, the federal government
carried on its traditions. It continues to accumulate surpluses
on the backs of the disadvantaged and to invade the areas of
health care, education, labour and early childhood over which
Quebec has jurisdiction.
Tradition and continuity describe the attitude of this
government. In other words, it is an authoritarian and
centralizing administration in its treatment of Quebec, among
others.
Furthermore, there is no provision for follow-up of the demands
of the world march of women, despite the motion in support passed
by this House on October 17.
Had the government really wanted to be innovative, it could have
helped the disadvantaged. The Bloc Quebecois will continue to
fight vigorously against the arrogance of the Liberal government.
* * *
[English]
GENIE AWARDS
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday, January 29, the Academy of Canadian Cinema
and Television announced the winners of the 21st Genie Awards,
which honour the finest in Canadian cinema. I congratulate the
award nominees and recipients for this year.
I especially congratulate my constituent Keith Ross Leckie for
being honoured with five nominations at this year's awards. Keith
has written scripts for more than a dozen hit movies including:
The David Milgaard Story, The Arrow, Children of
My Heart, and most recently, the feature film To Walk with
Lions.
These achievements, both creative and industrial, are a
reflection of the success our cinematic community is achieving
both at home and on the international stage. The new feature
film fund and the movies that come from that fund will ensure
that the men and women who work in this highly competitive
industry will be able to find worldwide success while remaining
in Canada, bringing glory, honour and great entertainment to our
wonderful country.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the House
knows well of the heroic courage our Merchant Navy veterans
showed 60 years ago when called to the seas in time of war. The
House knows well of the selfless risks taken by our Merchant Navy
veterans when they cast themselves into harm's way for king and
country.
Yet for reasons that escape all of us here in this Chamber, we
continue to dishonour them. Why has the government not paid out
the full 100%, not a mere 60%, of the compensation money to all
eligible veterans? Why will it not pay? Many veterans have not
even received 60% yet.
Why does the Minister of Veterans Affairs insist on trying to
justify this disgraceful action of the government, forcing
national heroes to fight for every single dollar owed to them?
Instead, why will the minister not rise here today and make a
pledge to these brave men that their money will be in their hands
by the end of February?
* * *
AL WAXMAN
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise with sadness to recognize the passing of Mr. Al Waxman, a
great Canadian, husband, father, friend and actor.
Mr. Waxman contributed significantly to the Canadian arts scene.
He starred in over a thousand TV, radio, theatre and film
performances. Although his career took him abroad, he always
came home to Canada, particularly to Toronto. He never forgot
where he came from.
Mr. Waxman was celebrated for his artistry as both an actor and
a director in the theatre, especially in Stratford, for the many
plays that he directed and participated in. Mr. Waxman played
many roles on TV but he will be best remembered by millions of
Canadians for his role as Larry King in the popular CBC TV series
King of Kensington, which was filmed in the Kensington
Market, the heart of Trinity—Spadina.
His true spirit of supporting his community was reflected
throughout his life. He was very active in many charities. He
represented the Canadian way through his theme of giving back.
I thank his wife Sara Waxman, daughter Tobaron and son Adam for
sharing his great personality and talents with us. He will be
missed and his huge personality will be well remembered.
* * *
GENIE AWARDS
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute the men and women
who are Canada's film industry.
Of those films and individuals who made it into the winner's
circle at the 21st annual Genie Awards, I pay particular tribute
to Martin Cummins, son of our parliamentary colleague, the member
for Delta—South Richmond.
Martin won best supporting actor for his own role in the film
Love Come Down, a love story about the acting debut of
singer Deborah Cox.
1415
Martin was also honoured when Helen Shaver won best supporting
actress for the film he wrote and directed, We All Fall
Down, which is about life on Vancouver's inner city streets.
As a former British Columbia fisherman, the member for
Delta—South Richmond can be proud of his son Martin and his
catch of the day at the Genie Awards.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will begin the first question
period, and I know members opposite on the government side are
just itching to join with me, by congratulating the Prime
Minister on his successful re-election.
The economy continues to
show signs of change. There is no question that we are headed
into turbulent times. We think we will be able to sail through
the choppy waters, but not without a budget in place that clearly
shows the change in the reaction to the revenue assumptions, the
change in the exchange rates, interest rates and revenue flows.
In light of these changes and in light of the fact that it is
unprecedented that a government would start a session without a
budget, will the Prime Minister reconsider and present a budget
this February?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his
congratulations on the election. I want to offer my
congratulations to him and to every member for winning their
seats.
On the question from the Leader of the Opposition about a
budget, the government was very wise to have a mini budget in
October because the reality is that the tax cuts that the
Americans are dreaming about at this moment were implemented in
Canada as of January 1, 2001.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that teeny tax reduction by the
Liberals in no way compares to what is happening in the United
States and that is a cause for concern.
[Translation]
Although we have every reason to be optimistic, it would be
logical and prudent for the government's forecasts to reflect the
new economic realities.
[English]
If the Prime Minister has no idea of the implications of the tax
reductions and no idea of the assumptions can he at least give us
the total cost of the promises in the Speech from the Throne
delivered yesterday? What is the total?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everything that was written in our program was costed
before. Contrary to the opposition party, which cannot add its
figures very well, we know everything that was in the plans that
we submitted to the Canadian public. As we said in the Speech
from the Throne, we know exactly what the cost will be, which is
what we told Canadians during the last campaign.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the answer, for those who need a
deciphering of that response, was that the Prime Minister does
not know the cost of what was put into the Speech from the
Throne. A few moments ago it was announced that the U.S. rate
was lowered.
Can the Prime Minister indicate to us if there is anybody on
that side who knows the cost of those promises? The Prime
Minister does not. Is there anyone on his team who does?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we all know that it is more than $800,000.
1420
In fact, over the years the opposition has complained and has
always blamed our Minister of Finance for being too prudent in
his forecasting. It was good that he developed a habit of being
prudent because it now gives us a lot of comfort. If adjustments
are needed we will of course make them.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the country has just received word that government
offices both in Ottawa and Toronto have been evacuated. The
immigration building here in Ottawa is, and I quote, “closed
until further notice”. Will the immigration minister stand and
confirm today that it is because of a suspected biological
threat?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to let people know exactly
what happened. An envelope was received in my office. It was
opened. There was a substance inside. The substance was tested.
As soon as it was determined it contained bacteria, it was
immediately sent to a lab for testing. Because of our concern
for the employees who work for us the building was closed.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there should be some mechanism
in place before people open general mail. There are reports that
this could potentially be anthrax. That moves it into a
completely—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton
North has the floor.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe
there is so much noise on the floor of the House of Commons when
lives are potentially in danger.
The report has come out that the substance may possibly be
anthrax. What is the immigration minister able to do and what
will she do to make sure that she is in control of her department
and in control of this crisis that is ongoing now?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first thing I will do is tell the
member opposite that it is irresponsible to speculate on what the
substance might be. The scientists are making that decision.
The second thing I will tell her is that the employees who came
into contact with the substance were immediately examined by
physicians and given, as a precaution, antibiotics to ensure that
their health and safety was our number one priority.
I support the decision of the senior management of my department
to close the building until we have the answers to all the
questions. I also want her to know that the issues have been
referred to the appropriate authorities, the RCMP and the
scientists, and everything that should be done is being done.
* * *
[Translation]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday's throne speech made repeated references to what the
Prime Minister calls “the Canadian way”, which is just an
excuse for increased interference in the jurisdictions of Quebec
and the provinces.
In fact, the main innovation in the throne speech was to ignore
federal jurisdiction or introduce a series of initiatives that
ride roughshod over the jurisdictions of Quebec and the
provinces.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister if he can explain to us why
the only area in which he really shows any imagination is that of
interfering in jurisdictions that do not concern him.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in the throne speech we alluded more than once to the fact that
we had agreements with the provinces in all these areas.
We have signed a number of agreements, regarding children in
particular. We have been working together with the provinces for
several years now and we are continuing to do so because we
believe that, if Canada is to be successful, all levels of
government must be involved in any programs introduced.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
speaking of agreements, there was one on health last September.
Let us remember that it came about after the federal government
cut off health funding. The provinces were left holding the bag
because they had to provide the services. This has been a great
hardship to the provinces.
1425
Would it not be more correct to say that the real innovation in
the throne speech was to give back to Quebec and the provinces
money that was rightly theirs for health services, at the 1994
funding levels?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when the country was bankrupt because of the bad administration
prior to the arrival of the Liberal government, all governments,
including the federal government, had to reduce expenditures.
Now that we have balanced the budget, interest rates are much
lower and the unemployment rate has dropped considerably. As a
matter of fact, on September 11, Mr. Bouchard congratulated me on
my patience and objectivity.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
years, the provinces, and Quebec in particular, have had problems
with health service funding. The reason for this is simple: the
needs are in Quebec, while the money is in Ottawa. Instead of
dealing with this problem in the throne speech, the Prime
Minister has again trotted out his obsession with the “citizens'
council”.
Aware as he is that the present level of federal funding of
health systems has dropped from 20% to 14%, can the Prime
Minister not, instead of hanging on to this pointless concept,
assume his responsibilities and raise the transfer payments to
their 1994 level, as all provincial premiers are demanding?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the Prime Minister has said, several months ago Quebec signed an
agreement, along with all the other provinces, concerning not
just health care funding but health care system reform.
We have considerably increased transfer payments to the
provinces for health and we have reached an agreement on the
priorities for reform and improvements to our health care system.
We are therefore working together, the federal government,
Quebec and all the other provinces, on this public priority.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at
the time this agreement with the premiers was reached, his idea
of the “citizens' council” was rejected.
Can the Prime Minister explain to us why he insists on imposing
this fancy of his, which will in no way improve health care and
services, whereas considerable progress would be made if he were
to increase transfer payments?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the election campaign, we promised to work toward setting
up such a council in order to get Canadians more directly
involved in the process of health care reform. It is clear,
however, that we are going to proceed by consulting our
provincial partners, and I intend to raise this matter with my
counterparts at the appropriate time.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Five hundred of the world's corporate representatives have
security clearance and access to the free trade area of the
Americas' negotiating documents, yet what is in those documents
is not being shared with Canadians.
With so much at stake and with so many legitimate concerns about
inadequate protection for agriculture, for the environment, for
health and education and for Canadian culture, why is the
government supporting such a closed process?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will take note of the hon. member's question because
no one has informed me that there is any problem in the
development of this conference.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government's throne speech yesterday was loaded with being more
open with Canadians but anyone who is not a government insider or
one of the members of the corporate elite is completely shut out
of the FTAA process.
The throne speech completely failed to acknowledge let alone
address legitimate concerns being raised about the government's
approach to globalization. Why are Canadians with legitimate
concerns about this latest free trade deal being forced to the
barricades?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am so very proud that Canada was the
first country of the 34 to put its position on the Internet. We
cannot be more transparent than that. The Canadian position is
right there on the Internet.
1430
As for the negotiating documents, obviously there are 34 parties
to it. It is not up to Canada to share it if other countries do
not want to share it. Canada would support sharing it at this
stage. However our partners do not wish that. We will respect
them. The Canadian position is right there on the Net, and we
are the first country to do it.
* * *
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question to the Prime Minister is simple and it allows a yes
or no answer. Will the Prime Minister fulfil his 1993 red book
promise?
The Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with
the leaders of all parties in the House of Commons and will
report directly to parliament.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I named this person I consulted the leader of the
Reform and the leader of the Bloc at that time. They both agreed
that Mr. Wilson was the person with the qualities to do that job.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
that is a promise broken.
I have another question for the Prime Minister. In his various
conversations with the president of the Business Development Bank
was there any reference, direct or indirect, to the Grand-Mère
Golf Club located next to the Auberge Grand-Mère, a golf club in
which the Prime Minister had held shares?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It gives me an
opportunity to point out that this matter has been looked at by
the ethics counsellor several times. Clear answers have been
given with respect to the notion of any conflict of interest.
As recently as today, the ethics counsellor, in a letter
addressed to the Leader of the Opposition, reiterated his
position at least three or four times in the text of another
letter. Let me read the last sentence of the letter:
Therefore it has been my position that the Prime Minister had no
financial links with either the golf course or the Auberge.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, clearly an economic storm is heading toward Canada, but
the government is not moving.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he be
presenting a budget before April 1 this year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt that the slowdown in the American economy has
implications for Canada's economy.
Most economists in Canada and elsewhere outside the country
believe that October's economic statement was the right tonic for
the Canadian economy and is working.
That said, we are continuing to follow the situation and, if we
must take other measures, we will.
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this government is ignoring what is happening in the
States. The Canadian economy is becoming more or less
competitive compared with the States.
I would like to know whether the Minister of Finance will really
cut taxes in order to address this new economic reality? This is
no longer October 2000.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is mistaken.
As the result of the economic statement, taxes on corporations
in Canada, on capital gains and on options will be lower than in
the United States. It is obvious we have taken the necessary
steps. If other steps are required, we will certainly consider
them.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, during the last election campaign, the Minister of
Public Works and Government Services and organizer for the
Liberal Party made the following pledge to the citizens of the
Montérégie region, on Montreal's south shore:
Only yesterday, the member for Beauharnois said:
Last week, the Minister of Transport wrote to his Quebec
counterpart that the Liberal promise was no longer valid.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether or
not his government will invest the $357 million that was
promised?
1435
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me first congratulate the hon. member on his
appointment as transport critic for the Bloc Quebecois.
Unfortunately, the hon. member is making a big mistake. In my
letter to Mr. Chevrette, I wrote that the federal government
would be reviewing the issue of highway 30 on a priority basis.
That is the position of the Canadian government. We are in
favour of extending highway 30 to reduce traffic congestion in
the Montreal area.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the residents of the Montérégie region want a clear
answer.
In the mailer from the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, the
Prime Minister said that the options offered would be crystal
clear.
We want a clear answer. Will the Liberal government make good on
its promise, or will it break it as it did with the GST?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian government's position is clear: we support
extending highway 30.
We are prepared to work with our friends from the Quebec
government to reduce traffic congestion on the island of
Montreal.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians will be very surprised to learn all of a
sudden that we have lower taxes than the United States. Our
taxes federally are at least a third higher than in the United
States. That was one heck of a nose stretcher.
The finance minister says that everything is fine and that we
can be happy. The chairman of the U.S. federal reserve says that
there is zero growth in our largest trading partner. Many major
economists say the U.S. is headed into a recession or is in a
recession.
It has cut an unprecedented one full point off interest rates in
the last month, including today. The markets are not reacting.
This could pose a crisis for the economy. What does the finance
minister intend to do about it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I neglected to congratulate the member for Richmond on
posing his first question in the House, and I would like to
congratulate him. I wish I could congratulate the financial
critic who was in New York with me at the time we had discussions
with representatives of the American business community.
They seemed to understand that Canadian corporate taxes will be
lower than those of the United States. They understood that our
capital gains taxes are now lower than those of the United
States. They also understood that our treatment of stock options
is more generous than in the United States. If they understand
it in the States, why does the critic for the Alliance not
understand it?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, if they understand it, why are Canadian business
people, investors and young people leaving the country every day
to pursue economic opportunities in the United States? They
understand that there are greater economic opportunities where
taxes are lower.
The finance minister is avoiding a very serious issue. We
export more manufactured goods to the United States than we
consume domestically. Consumer demand in the United States is
going through the floor. The stock markets, as we speak, are
actually reacting negatively to a 50 basis point cut in the fed
rate.
What does the finance minister propose to do? Will he just
ignore the growing storm clouds on the horizon, or will he bring
in a budget that cuts taxes and does so quickly?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that the implications of the slowing
U.S. economy will have their effect in Canada. We will monitor
the situation very closely and if it is necessary to take action
we will take it.
I think I should be able to simply cite one economic forecaster
among the many in the country to tell members exactly what the
government has done. Let me simply do so.
The Conference Board of Canada indicates that recent changes in
taxation, combined with the spillover from the 2000 budget, have
created cuts in personal income tax, boosting household spending
power in Canada. It goes on to say that at a time when the U.S.
economy is slowing and exporters are hurting, the federal
government in Canada appears to be riding to the rescue.
* * *
[Translation]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on pages 18
and 19 of the throne speech, it says, and I quote: “Government
reaffirms its commitment to support sustainable official language
minority communities”.
Can the Prime Minister give us a clear definition of what a
sustainable minority community is?
1440
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question
and also congratulate him on his return to the House.
As he has already spent some time here, he is very much aware of
our desire to strengthen our commitment, not only to the
viability of the francophone communities across Canada but also
to their full development, wherever they are in this fine country
of ours.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
not the only ones concerned. The Commissioner of Official
Languages has some concerns about this new concept or definition
as well.
Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage or the Prime Minister give
us a clear definition of what a sustainable minority
community is?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since the hon. member wants to make use of quotes, I too
would like to use one, this one from the FCFAC stating that “It
is encouraging to see the federal government speaking up to
reaffirm its commitment to the principle of linguistic duality”.
I would also like to emphasize that, as the hon. member over
there and his cousins in Quebec are well aware, one has to be
very careful in one's choice of words.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, my question is with respect to the drunk driving tragedy
this past weekend involving a Russian diplomat. This is at least
the third drunk driving offence in recent times involving this
diplomat.
We have also received reports that the diplomat, Mr. Knyazev,
had a letter from the Department of Foreign Affairs apologizing
to him for his treatment at the hands of the Ottawa police the
last time he was arrested for drunk driving.
Will the minister confirm the existence of this letter and
ensure that the nature and contents of that letter are revealed
to the House?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members of the House would join
me in expressing the profound sadness and concern that we feel
both for the family of Catherine MacLean as well as for Catherine
Doré, who has suffered serious injuries as a result of this
incident, and her family. It is a tragedy and it is a great loss
of a wonderful person.
We have made our views very clearly known to the Russian
government. We asked it to waive diplomatic immunity in this
case. Our concern is that the individual involved in the
accident be required to face justice. We expect that to happen
at the hands of Russian authorities.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would really like a response to the question I just
raised. I also point out that this is at least the third time
Knyazev was stopped by police for drunk driving. Each time the
Department of Foreign Affairs was informed.
Why was this diplomat not expelled long ago when it became clear
that each time he went out on the road he was endangering
Canadian lives?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not aware of the letter to which the hon. member
refers.
Generally speaking, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not
informed of incidents unless a charge has been laid. On
investigating the information that we had with respect to police
investigations in the community, we did not have information that
any other charges had been considered or laid against the
individual. We had only been asked for a photograph of the
individual involved, which was provided to the relevant
authorities.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL AID
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International
Co-Operation.
The massive earthquake that rocked the Indian subcontinent last
week has affected millions of people. Let us join with those
constituents in Brampton Centre who are among the many Canadian
relatives of the victims as we mourn the deaths and pray for
strength for those facing devastation and misery.
Could the minister tell the House what efforts have been made by
the Canadian government to provide assistance to the victims of
this devastating earthquake in India?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I extend my deepest sympathies to the
families of the people of India and to the communities in Canada
with families there. Having been involved in an earthquake
myself very recently, I know the devastation that it can create.
As soon as the Indian earthquake took place, I immediately
announced $1 million in assistance to deal with the information I
had at hand.
1445
I tripled that to $3 million in health assistance for some
100,000 people, shelter for about 20,000, clean water for about
25,000 people, and clothing for about 50,000. I will be
announcing further assistance in the near future.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, farmers
are again demonstrating on Parliament Hill because they are being
forced into bankruptcy. New parliament, same problem.
According to figures released yesterday by the government, the
average return last year for a Saskatchewan agricultural producer
was $14 a day. There is no support for farmers, which would be
entirely legal under the WTO, but billions in highly questionable
loan guarantees are instantly available to Bombardier.
Spring seeding is just months away. When can Canadian farmers
expect to hear of some meaningful assistance for them from the
government?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since June 1997 the government has
increased support to the safety nets for Canadian farmers by 85%.
Last year we put in place a program, for example, of interest
free money available to individual producers. That will be
available for producers again this year.
We are continuing to look at a number of ways in which we can
add further support to combat the stress we know is there,
particularly in the grains and oilseeds sectors of Canadian
agriculture.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday's throne speech was little more than a rehash of tired
Liberal platitudes, offering little for Canadians to cheer about.
While the government is busy patting itself on the back and
telling us all is well, thousands of workers in the city of
Windsor and in communities like it are facing layoffs and plant
closings.
Will the finance minister today commit to introducing a budget
with concrete measures to address the impending economic downturn
and crisis in our auto industry?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said repeatedly in the House, obviously we are
concerned by the implications of the slowdown in the United
States. The fact is that the very large fiscal stimulus of tax
cuts and spending on things like health care is exactly the tonic
required.
I must say that the $17 billion tax cut for this year alone only
went into effect less than a month ago. That being said, we will
continue to monitor the situation in the United States and will
take whatever action is required as circumstances warrant.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker,
could the Prime Minister explain to this House the link between
the suspicious circumstances surrounding the loan to Auberge
Grand-Mère, an issue with which he is very familiar, and the fact
that the Federal Business Development Bank has had three
different chairmen over an 18 month period, which is also
something the Prime Minister is well aware of?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said earlier today, the ethics counsellor wrote
to the Leader of the Opposition in response to his letter.
It does not matter how much the leader of the Conservative Party
wishes it were otherwise, the fact of the matter is that the
Prime Minister, a 38 year veteran of the House, is a man of
integrity. His reputation has been completely upheld by the
ethics counsellor.
If the member opposite were a gentleman he would accept that and
stop this character assassination.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the questionable contention of the
Prime Minister and the minister that the ethics counsellor has
cleared the Prime Minister of any wrongdoing, a commissioner, I
note, who reports only to the Prime Minister, will he now admit
that there was a connection between the decision of the Business
Development Bank to call the $600,000 loan to the Prime
Minister's friend Yvon Duhaime and the dismissal of the Business
Development Bank president François Beaudoin?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no, I would make no such admission because that is an
absolutely false and misleading statement.
I would ask the member to contemplate the nature of the kinds of
comments that are now being made. The question of the dismissal
of the former executive is a matter now before the courts. The
member as a lawyer knows it ought not to be commented upon in the
House or outside the House.
* * *
1450
PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in its decision on child pornography last week, the
Supreme Court of Canada legalized some child pornography, stating
that harm to children would be minimal.
Does the Minister of Justice agree with the court that the risk
to our children created by the court is acceptable?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, let me welcome my
colleague, the member of parliament for Provencher. The member
and I have a history together. He is the former—
Hon. Ronald Duhamel: Poor you.
Miss Deborah Grey: Should I give him my red jacket?
The Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the House will
want to hear the history.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Let me clarify that the history to
which I am referring is the fact the hon. member is the former
attorney general of the province of Manitoba. I look forward to
working with him in the months and years ahead.
The hon. member raises an important question. Since the Supreme
Court of Canada ruling in R v Sharpe, I made it plain that I
would consult with provincial and territorial colleagues, the
police and the prosecutors. In fact, if further clarification is
required in relation to the two exemptions or exceptions set out
by the supreme court, we in the House will undertake those
clarifications.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the minister for her answer. Considering my
wife is in the audience in the House, I appreciate the
clarification.
Contrary to the minister's position that the harm to Canada's
children appears to be acceptable, the attorney general of
Ontario has expressed concern that the decision of the court may
create serious difficulties for law enforcement and our children.
What concrete steps will the minister take to protect our
children?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows
I did not suggest in my response to his first question that the
harm was acceptable.
As I said, I had the opportunity to speak with the attorney
general of Ontario. I understand that the attorney general will
be writing to me about some of the questions he has around the
possible clarification of the two exceptions identified by the
supreme court.
I appreciate receiving those concerns. I told the attorney
general of Ontario that I would work with him, with other
provincial and territorial colleagues, with the police and with
the prosecutors, and if clarification is required to protect our
children—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Longueuil.
* * *
[Translation]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as we
know, this government is still the object of numerous criminal
investigations.
A major problem is the fact that the ethics counsellor is at the
mercy of the Prime Minister's will and is not even accountable to
the House of Commons.
How can the Prime Minister explain that the throne speech is
totally silent on this issue, when we all know that it made
headlines everywhere during the election campaign?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well,
and in fact we answered the question earlier, that the ethics
counsellor is truly a person of integrity and that he has done an
excellent job. His appointment received the support of the
member's party and of the Canadian Alliance or Reform Party,
because I am not sure what they call themselves now.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
issue is not who the government House leader consulted in 1993 or
whenever.
We simply want to know why the Prime Minister stubbornly insists
on maintaining full control over the ethics counsellor. Is it
because it suits his purposes?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member got the answer to
her question. Needless to say that, while she may try hard, she
must know that these allegations are unfounded and also unfair to
the Prime Minister, the ethics counsellor and everyone else. The
hon. member knows full well that these accusations are completely
incorrect.
* * *
1455
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Edmonton Southeast has said
that western Canadians are being treated unfairly by his own
government. He said “We are being shut out of the national
government. We need substantial change, not cosmetics, optics or
gimmicks”. Yet the throne speech contains nothing of substance
to address this important issue.
Given that the problems are so obvious to members of his own
caucus and cabinet, how does the Prime Minister propose to solve
these important issues by ignoring them?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our government has managed to get 17 members elected
west of Ontario three times in a row. We would like to have many
more, but I guess we have a few more members than the Alliance
has in Quebec or in Ontario.
We will continue working hard to convince them that we are
providing them with a good government. Despite the fact that
they have only 17 members, they have 9 members in cabinet and
that is pretty good representation.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that tepid response, recent unfortunate comments by
the intergovernmental affairs minister and disparaging remarks by
the Prime Minister himself directed exclusively and solely at
western Canadians require an apology.
The Prime Minister has spent more time in the air flying to
Florida for golf trips than he has spent on the ground in western
Canada. How does the Prime Minister expect to find solutions to
important western Canadian problems when the closest he gets is
35,000 feet?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no prime minister has ever travelled as much as I have
in western Canada. I have been going there for many years. There
has not been a year when I have not been in every province. I
have travelled in the territories all my life. Half of my family
is from Alberta. I know the west and I do my best. I am very
proud that we have achieved something that has not been done
before. I will keep working. We are persistent.
The member had to change parties, so others will probably decide
to change parties to be on the good side with us.
* * *
[Translation]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the solicitor general.
For a number of months now, organized crime has been becoming an
increasing presence in our communities. People in my riding, as
in the rest of Canada, need to know what the federal government
will be doing in the face of this threat.
Could the solicitor general tell this House whether the
government has a plan of action and, if so, what steps does he
plan to take in the coming months?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Québec East
on his first question.
I am sure he is aware, as is everybody in the House, that we
live in one of the safest countries in the world. The government
is committed to making sure it stays that way.
My hon. colleagues are well aware that in the Speech from the
Throne aggressive steps were taken to intensify the fight against
organized crime, such as stronger anti-gang laws and the
protection in the justice system of members against intimidation.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister likes to
selectively quote statistics to mask what is really happening now
on Canadian farms with regard to the financial crisis. I have
two statistics for him.
First, for the year 2000 in Saskatchewan the total net income
will only be 35% of the five year average which is already a
disaster. Second, only half of the money that the minister
promised over two years ago has been delivered. Farmers are on
the brink of bankruptcy and are demanding emergency cash
injections.
Why will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food not commit to
an emergency cash injection right now before it is springtime?
1500
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the role of supporting agriculture across
the country is twofold, with both the federal government and the
provincial governments giving support.
The government of Saskatchewan has put some support there, but
nowhere near the level of support that some other provinces have
given to individual farmers.
The commitment of the government, in conjunction with the
provinces, that would put out $1.6 billion in aid and support to
farmers will be fulfilled. I can guarantee that.
As I said before, the interest free money available for spring
seeding will be there again this spring. We are looking at other
support for farmers as we go into the spring seeding time.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I never saw the Liberal government
asking the provinces for permission to give Bombardier money.
Farmers across the country have come to Parliament Hill this
week to tell the minister that agriculture programs have failed.
The Speech from the Throne mentioned getting beyond crisis
management in agriculture but ignored the disaster created by the
government's mismanagement. Farm families need help today, not
months or years from now.
Why will the minister not commit to an emergency cash injection
before spring seeding?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that the
province of Quebec contributed to the support for Bombardier. It
is a 100% repayable loan.
The hon. member made comments about the throne speech. I am
very concerned that he does not want to see the government do all
it possibly can to help the industry move beyond crisis
management. That is the challenge we have and that is the
opportunity we will fulfil.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPECIAL WARRANT
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I notice in The Canada Gazette that an amount of
$1.768 billion has been approved by Governor General's special
warrant providing for expenditures from January 13, 2001 to
February 11, 2001.
I refer to private member's Bill C-270, assented to on February
19, 1997, with which I think the Speaker is quite familiar. If I
may quote the bill, it says “Subject to subsection (1.1) where
payment is urgently required for the public good” and “there is
no other appropriation pursuant to which the payment may be
made”, the Governor General may authorize the payment.
When I look at the details of this special warrant, I see that
they are all basically for operating expenditures. The House
approved operating expenditures for all the departments mentioned
when we approved the main estimates last June.
Therefore in my opinion this is not eligible to be approved by
way of special warrant because there was already an appropriation
made by the House last June to cover the operating expenditures
for the departments listed in this special warrant.
Therefore I would like to ask the President of the Treasury
Board why this $1.768 billion of taxpayer money is being expended
without reference to the House and when this will be rectified.
Perhaps she could clarify whether or not this is actually legal,
because in my opinion it is in contravention of the law as it
currently stands.
1505
The Speaker: The Chair has grave reservations as to
whether this is in fact a point of order or a matter of argument
on the application of the law.
Perhaps the government House leader, in a brief reply, could
clarify the situation for the hon. member for St. Albert in a way
that would let the matter rest for the time being at least. I
know there will be other opportunities to investigate these
special warrants.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Standing
Order 81 explains for the hon. member and for anyone else how the
convention of supply works. It should be obvious to anyone that
the House could not grant supply before parliament had been
reconvened. The House was of course called back to elect our
Speaker on Monday and received its Speech from the Throne
yesterday. The hon. member knows that even before estimates
could be approved by the House we would need at least seven
opposition days in order to do that.
The hon. member is questioning whether these expenditures are
necessary because they are for operations. Need I remind him
that if there is no money for operations and the government
ceases to function at the same time as he and his colleagues are
demanding further expenditures, there would be at least something
wrong. It is not only the privilege but the duty of the
government to ensure that the government functions until
parliament can properly grant supply.
The Speaker: We will treat the matter as closed for
the time being. I am going from memory at this point, but my
recollection is that these special warrants are referred to the
standing committee on something or other, and I think it is the
public accounts committee.
I know the hon. member for St. Albert was a member if not the
chair of that committee in the last parliament. Who knows what
will happen when the striking committee reports, but I am sure
that if he is the chair he will be able to take up that matter in
the committee with vigour and enthusiasm and find out all the
details about whether there was anything amiss in the special
warrant to which he refers.
I believe the Chair has notice of a point of order from the hon.
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate you on your rocket-like
ascent to position of Speaker.
I rise on two points of order. My first point of order concerns
a letter that was referred to in an answer in question period. I
would ask that the Minister of Industry table the letter so that
it forms a part of the record of the 37th parliament. I
acknowledge that he has provided us with a copy.
My second point of order concerns a response to a question I
posed to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Industry
characterized my question as a false and misleading statement.
Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to Beauchesne's sixth edition, a
publication that I know you are very attached to. At page 151,
citation 494, it states:
It has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by Members
respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge
must be accepted. It is not unparliamentary temperately to
criticize statements made by Members as being contrary to the
facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible.
On rare occasions this may result in the House having to accept
two contradictory accounts of the same incident.
It may be that the Minister of Industry is feeling a bit testy
because his old riding of Straits—White Bay North has just gone
Tory for the first time since Confederation. Trevor Taylor was
elected there.
I would ask in all honesty that the new member would now
withdraw that characterization as false and misleading in this
Chamber.
The Speaker: I will deal with the first issue concerning
the tabling of a letter. If the Minister of Industry did read
from a letter, I would be glad to hear from him on that point.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to table the letter in
question but pursuant to standing orders I will have to await the
appropriately translated version of the letter in order to lay it
on the table of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I await your direction on this, but with respect to
the second matter I would be happy to respond now if the Speaker
so desires.
1510
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has raised an interesting point.
Perhaps if instead of reading Beauchesne's he had read Marleau
and Montpetit, he would have come up with a slightly different
bent on his argument.
As he knows, Beauchesne's is an older book now and Marleau and
Montpetit is just the latest and greatest on procedural matters,
of course. I know the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough reads that book extensively.
However the difficulty is that the words the Minister of Industry
used did not include the words deliberately misleading. My
recollection, without having gone through Marleau and Montpetit
extensively on this occasion, is that the words must be that the
statement was deliberately misleading the House. He did not say
that.
Accordingly, while I heard him say it and the thought passed
through my mind, as I know it did through that of the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and sent him running for
Beauchesne's, I do not feel that he has transgressed the rules
today on this point. Accordingly I have nothing further to say.
I do not think the point of order is well taken.
Hon. Brian Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I was well aware that the
word deliberately in fact would have put me in a position where I
would have transgressed the rules of the House.
However, I want to say that I have been in a far gentler House
for the last five years, a gentle place full of gentlemen and
gentlewomen, and I realize today that I have returned somewhat to
old form. Even though I have not violated the rules of the
House, because it is my first day back and I want a good start,
if I in any way, shape or form have offended the sensibilities of
the member opposite, I want him to know that I hope he sleeps
well tonight.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of ways and means
motion relating to the assessment of expenses regarding a
financial consumer agency, and I ask that an order of the day be
designated for consideration thereof.
* * *
[Translation]
BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that
the following member has been appointed a member of the Board of
Internal Economy for the purposes and by virtue of the provisions
of the Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, chapter 32 of
the Statutes of Canada, 1997: the hon. member for
Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh.
[English]
Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to
seek the consent of the House, following consultation on all
sides, to present without debate the following motion. It is a
motion that I believe is supported by members of all parties
represented in the House and is seconded by my colleague, the
member for Vancouver East.
I move that this House condemn the cruel punishment of 100
lashes administered on the 22nd of January last to Bariya Magazu,
a Nigerian child in Zamfara state, as an act of torture and a
breach of Nigeria's commitments under the UN convention against
torture, the UN convention on the rights of the child and the
international covenant on civil and political rights, and call on
the Canadian government to work with the Nigerian federal
government and all relevant authorities in an effort to ensure
that this cruel and unusual punishment is not repeated.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent
of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1515
Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order to seek guidance of the Chair. There have been
consultations on all sides of the House and an agreement from
members representing all parties. With great respect, I wonder
if the Speaker might seek consent of the House once again. I
think he might find that it is forthcoming.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Perhaps there were consultations with all House leaders. However,
when members produce a long motion like the member just gave
looking for unanimous consent, I think some of us would prefer a
bit of notice so we could consider it in detail.
The Speaker: I think it is apparent there is not consent.
Clearly the hon. member could put his motion on the notice paper
and then seek consent once it has been on the notice paper for a
period of time. Perhaps that is the way to deal with it.
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am today tabling in the House three
petitions concerning employment insurance by constituents of the
riding of Charlevoix.
Since the Minister of Human Resources Development is simply
putting off the problem of seasonal workers by gradually changing
the limits of employment insurance regions over the next three
years, the people of Charlevoix will continue to pressure the
government.
They ask the government to make acceptable changes as quickly as
possible so seasonal workers are not penalized.
[English]
KIDNEY RESEARCH
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition signed by several hundred people from
Peterborough and elsewhere. The petitioners point out that
kidney disease is a huge and growing problem in Canada, and that
real progress is being made in various ways of presenting and
coping with kidney disease.
They call upon parliament to encourage the Canadian Institutes
of Health Research to explicitly recognize kidney research as one
of the institutes in its system. The institute would be named
the institute of kidney and urinary tract diseases.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr.
Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
welcome back to the chair. I have had a lot of good
opportunities when you have been in the chair to ask permission
for an emergency debate.
Under Standing Order 52, I ask that the House, through your
auspices in the chair, allow an emergency debate with respect to
the crisis in agriculture today. As seen in the House today, all
parties, including the government, agree that there is a general
crisis in agriculture. We should have the opportunity in the
House to discuss openly what is happening right now in my
community and other communities across the country.
Since 1999 we have lost 22,000 farmers. The year 2000 was the
worst. The year 2001 and beyond will be worse yet. We have to
talk about short term requirements and long term support
programs, and we have to talk about them now. I ask the Speaker
to allow us an emergency debate on agriculture.
The Speaker: The Chair has carefully considered the
point raised by the hon. member for Brandon—Souris. While the
Chair was tempted to grant the emergency debate, I point out to
the House that we are debating today, tomorrow, and I believe
Friday, the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. That
allows debate on any topic.
Since any topic may be raised, including the very important
topic mentioned by the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, during
the next few days at random, the Chair feels that it would be
inappropriate at this time to grant an emergency debate on the
subject raised. Of course the hon. member is free to bring the
matter before the House on another occasion.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1520
[Translation]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed from January 30 consideration of the motion
for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply
to her speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to resume debate on the Address in Reply to
the Speech from the Throne.
First, I wish to thank Her Excellency the Governor General for
the class that she displayed in delivering the Speech from the
Throne and for the passion with which she fulfils her duties as
the representative of Her Majesty the Queen in Canada.
We were all very touched by her recent visit to the Innu
children of Sheshatsiu. Her Excellency travelled there on behalf
of all Canadians to show our compassion toward the children of
this community in crisis.
I also want to congratulate the leaders of all the other parties
for the way they campaigned. I know that harsh words were
sometimes spoken and that Canadians expressed their frustration
at the tone used during that period, but I also know that party
leaders are dedicated and determined people and that they firmly
believe in what they do.
Finally, I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on getting a
new mandate from Canadians.
The official opposition has a duty to ensure that the government
fulfils the responsibilities it has been given by Canadians.
While we sometimes disagree with the policies or administrative
measures of this government, our task is made easier in knowing
that the Prime Minister cares about serving the public and loves
our country.
[English]
I am sure everybody in the House would agree, regardless of
party, that when I say our greatest desire is to help the people
of the country achieve their greatest potential that should
be our goal. We want our constituents and all Canadians to be
able to meet their daily needs, to reach their personal goals and
to fulfil their dreams.
We hear a lot of talk about the difference among regions in
the country and the difference of goals and the difference of
values. I believe there is much more that joins us than divides
us.
All Canadians have hope and aspirations for their future. I
think we would all agree that all Canadians want good jobs that
allow them to live in comfort. They want an excellent education
for their children. They want health care to be available when
they need it. They want a clean environment. They want safe
communities and strong families. They want freedom in the
pursuit of their dreams.
These are the hopes and dreams all Canadians share regardless of
regions in the country. Our task in the House is to make sure
that people have the freedom and the ability to achieve those
hopes and dreams.
There are two basic philosophies or approaches toward government
in terms of seeing a people attain their hopes and dreams.
On one side there is a strong interventionist approach that
holds that the machinery of government should be intervening
significantly throughout economic and social life. In helping
citizens to reap the harvest of their dreams, the government
chooses the field, prepares the land, selects the seed, plants
the crop, drives the plough, harvests the crop and markets the
produce. The people do what the state tells them and then they
receive what the state gives them and are expected to be happy
with the results. This is sometimes called an entitlement
approach because people receive what the government tells them
they are entitled to have.
The other approach says that people themselves should plant and
harvest their own field of dreams. It is individual
citizens who should choose their field, sow the seeds of their
own hopes and harvest the yield of their own crop of dreams. The
government's role is to ensure that all are treated fairly under
laws of equality and that all have an equal opportunity to work
toward the dreams and receive the rewards of their own efforts.
This is sometimes called an empowerment approach because people
are given the tools and resources they need to pursue their
goals, their hopes and their dreams.
These two approaches are not totally incompatible. All
democratic societies have a blend of intervention and also
freedom, entitlement and empowerment. There are genuine
entitlements; the right to support seniors in the form of
pensions and the right to health care for all, which we all
accept. Advocates of both models believe society must show care
and compassion, especially for those who cannot care for
themselves.
1525
One of the lessons of the last century is that the philosophy of
a limited form of government and intervention, one which
encourages empowerment rather than one which intervenes all the
time in terms of entitlement, is the one that yields the broadest
possibility of people attaining their hopes and dreams.
That is the vision of the Canadian Alliance. It is a vision of
empowering Canadians. Empowering Canadians means that rather
than relying on politicians and bureaucrats to shape our
collective future, we must instead see that people are equipped
with the tools they need to build their own futures.
In reply to the Speech from the Throne I will propose those
things that we believe will explain why the positive vision of
the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition, can be used in
the attainment of these goals.
We can empower the Canadian economy by giving individuals,
entrepreneurs and business more freedom, allowing them to keep
more of their hard earned money and to fulfil their own
potential. We can empower Canadian community and civil society
so that Canadians working together, especially at the local
level, can be assured of excellent health care, a clean
environment and safe streets and communities. We can accomplish
those things.
We can empower Canadian democracy, providing a renewed sense of
citizenship and participation in the decisions of government,
starting with reforms that are necessary right here in the House.
This is the people's Chamber and we believe that a more
democratic Canada will be a stronger and more united Canada.
Democratic empowerment, community empowerment and economic
empowerment is our vision for a stronger, better and a more
united Canada. We hope we can persuade the government that
the philosophy of empowerment would result in a better country
than would the fading philosophy of entitlement and massive
intervention.
The Speech from the Throne shows a government that has dozens
and dozens of program ideas, vague promises and trial balloons.
These are all well focus tested no doubt, but lacking in overall
depth and understanding of the very nature of the people we
serve.
It was interesting in the Senate chamber yesterday as I watched
the effect of promise after promise on one of the very few young
people who had been invited by the federal Liberals. I
say young people in deference to my wife who is here and also to
others.
This has absolutely no reflection on Her Excellency who
delivered a marvellous speech, but as the speech progressed and
as promise after promise was made and laid upon the shoulders of
Canadians with the ensuing cost, the face of the young person who
works in the Senate became more and more pale and beads of sweat
began to appear on his forehead.
This is just my assumption as to why he was suffering. He
looked like a strong young man and well intended but eventually
he went down on one knee under the weight I presume of what he
was hearing. I had to encourage him, as did others. I said not
to worry, that we could address the situation. He was helped to
his feet and taken from the room somewhat refreshed.
What we want to do is take these old, tired ideas that the
federal government brings to this Chamber and refresh them with
the policies of empowerment that will especially see our young
people stand strong and encouraged for the future which faces
them.
That is the reason we are making these proposals today, and we
will continue to do so. The government still believes in its
heart that the answer to every problem is more and bigger
government, more intervention and more dominance. The government
believes that it knows best and that the people of Canada cannot
be relied upon to make decisions for themselves.
We believe in the people of this country. That is the big
difference between us and the government. We believe they know
what is best for them. We believe the role of government is to
assist people, not to control them.
It was in the period of state expansion in the sixties and
seventies that the philosophical ideas of the Liberal Government
of Canada were formed. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime
Minister were a part of that era of dramatic government expansion
and intervention. The Minister of Finance, who was not there
during those times, absorbed the whole process by osmosis.
The experience of the eighties and nineties showed even the
Liberals that the tax, borrow and spend policies of the sixties
and seventies would eventually take us to the brink of economic
disaster. For those interested in that, the truths of classical
economics were rediscovered.
In plain terms, these are the same truths that most households
are aware of from their own budgets. What they do not have they
cannot spend. Even liberals and socialists, as we look
historically around the world, have been forced to rediscover the
virtues of balanced budgets and, more recently, tax reductions.
1530
Furthermore, politically the federal government has been forced
to retreat from the position of intervention and entitlement,
especially in the social field, through the use of its spending
power. It had to change course, not only because the federal
intrusions were exacerbating federal-provincial tensions and
fanning the flames of separatism in Quebec, but also because it
could no longer afford that scale of intervention in the lives of
its citizens.
Economic and political reality have now forced the Liberals to
retreat from the kind of massive deficit spending that they
indulged in during the 1970s and 1980s. What I am concerned
about is that their heart has never been in it. Their heart has
never been there. As we see the possibility of surpluses, I am
very concerned about a return to those old ways because that is
where their hearts are, massive intervention into these types of
programs.
Fundamentally, Liberals believe that there is no problem so
tough, no challenge so difficult and no chasm so deep that it
cannot be solved with another government program. They have
never understood that a less dominant state can lead to a
stronger, healthier economy and a flourishing civil society.
The Liberals have never understood that a less invasive state
can be accompanied by the empowerment of individual families,
citizens, community groups, businesses and local governments so
that they themselves can find answers together to the challenges
they face.
This government asks Canadians for blind trust while showing a
lack of trust in those Canadians. The government believes in
itself but we believe in the wisdom, hard work and ability of the
Canadian people.
I will present the vision of the Canadian Alliance, the official
opposition, and those proven policy positions which will enhance
the quality of life for all Canadians. First we have to look at
empowering the Canadian economy. The first step toward doing
that is to make sure people are equipped with the tools they need
to compete in the global economy of the future and that they are
provided with the incentives that reward those efforts.
The throne speech attempted to paint a rosy picture of the
Canadian economy. We heard again today that the picture may not
be all that rosy. There are cracks beneath the facade of
economic prosperity. We think that these cracks can be managed
if the right policies are in place, but it appears as though
those policies will not be in place.
The United States economy, which has been the economic engine of
growth substantially for Canada and other economies for the last
several years, is now reporting a possibility of zero growth.
Alan Greenspan and the U.S. federal reserve have taken sharp
rate cuts, again today, to stave off the economic slowdown. Mr.
Greenspan recently announced U.S. growth was near zero. Canada
is bound to feel the effects of this, especially in sectors where
we rely on the United States, such as the automobile industry,
the high tech industry and others where we are seeing an
increased number of layoffs being reported. With the threat of a
slowdown, the Canadian people need a plan that will empower them
and the economy to see them through these choppy seas that lay
ahead.
What are the Liberals doing to empower Canadians and equipping
them to face the uncertain economic times that we are now
entering? They have announced some teeny tax cuts in their teeny
budget but these are grudging, half hearted, half step measures.
Their hearts are not in it. It is not enough in the short term
to address the current economic uncertainty. It is not enough to
ensure that the Canadian economy will start to catch up to the
United States or keep us from falling further behind. We have
already paid the price for that in a declining standard of living
relative to other countries. Our standard of living, as measured
by real disposable income per capita, has actually declined from
70% of the U.S. average in 1990 to just over 63% in the year
2000.
The then Royal Bank's chief economist, now the member for
Markham, commenting on the Canadian performance in the 1990s,
used the Latin words decennium horribilis, roughly translated as
being lousy Liberal politics.
In a survey of the 25 wealthiest OECD countries, Canada's growth
and standard of living ranked a terrible 24th over the decade
from 1988 to 1998. Do we still enjoy good living in Canada? Of
course we do, but in which direction is it headed? We must be
consumed with that question.
1535
Ireland was actually number one and has moved from having only
half of Canada's per capita income to almost the same level in a
mere 10 years. Think about that. Ireland has doubled its
standard of living in a decade while Canada has been standing
still.
The Canadian economy is growing slightly now but it is falling
behind many of our trading partners. These realities must be
recognized.
I have hope and optimism that these trends can be corrected but
not on the plans and proposals offered to us by the government.
If Canada does not catch up and overtake the productivity growth
in the other countries, it will find itself continuing to fall
behind.
What is worse is that the gap between the United States and
Canada will grow and not shrink over the next few years. With
the Bush administration in the United States it is very clear
that it is going to aggressively pursue tax reductions and debt
reductions.
Alan Greenspan has also given the nod of approval and stated
that is a prudent way to go. The gap will only increase in terms
of competition and in terms of potential reward for people
deciding where they are to put their investment dollars and where
they should be working themselves.
The proposals, which now seem on their way to implementation in
the United States, echo the proposals of the official opposition.
As a matter of fact the official opposition proposals were in
place even before those of the Bush administration. It must have
been reading our manual somewhere along the way.
The Canadian Alliance calls for significant tax cuts and tax and
debt reductions. We want to empower Canadians by leaving them
not just more of their hard earned money but with the hope for
investment and opportunity in the future.
The plan, if it is fully implemented, would save Canadians $130
billion dollars over the next five years. It would reduce income
tax rates to 17% for 97% of all Canadians within the first four
years, and 100% of all Canadians, in a second mandate, would be
enjoying a single rate of 17% on our approach.
Large personal exemptions of $10,000 per person and $3,000 per
child would also help Canadians. We are asking that those be
implemented as well. Let the Liberals take the credit and let
the families benefit, especially lower income Canadians and
families.
Our burden of income taxes as a percentage of GDP would drop
from over 14%. That is the highest rate in the G-7 countries,
which is not something to be proud of.
The Liberals complained that our program was too large and too
radical but then they turned around and implemented their own
pale copy of our program.
An interesting comment that someone passed on to me comes from
the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. He once said that
all truth passes through three stages: first, it is ridiculed;
second, it is opposed; and, third, it is accepted as being
self-evident.
That has been the Liberals' approach to the Canadian Alliance
call for tax cuts and other proposals. First they say it is
crazy, then they say it is dangerous and finally they do it
themselves. However, while the Liberals stole some of our
program, we begged them to steal more of it for the good of all
Canadians.
We need these bold tax cuts to keep Canada competitive, not half
measures. Not only are the government's tax cuts half measures,
its plan is only half baked. Its implementation is too slow, in
fact only half fast.
The Liberal mini cuts will still leave Canada with the highest
income tax to GDP ratio in the G-7, even while the U.S. is
dramatically lowering its tax burden. We need to give hard
working Canadians, businesses and entrepreneurs the same kinds of
incentives and rewards that they could be achieving elsewhere or
they will be lured to those other places.
We believe that if Canadian businesses and workers are allowed
to harness their own dreams and visions, the country will benefit
as a whole. The most important vision for the country is that of
the Canadian people themselves and not the tax and spend
fantasies of the Liberal government.
That is why the official opposition believes that the Minister
of Finance should table a new budget in the spring, rather than
wait a full year after the election. We are disappointed that
the Speech from the Throne did not commit the government to an
earlier budget. It must bring one down.
Canadians must be updated on the cost of the government's
election promises. Today when I asked what those costs were,
there was no response. The government does not even know and yet
economic times are changing.
The government must reassure markets in this time of economic
uncertainty and it must take measures to help Canada be
competitive with our trading partners.
1540
The Canadian Alliance urges the Minister of Finance to table an
early budget to continue the necessary work of tax reduction,
debt reduction, and seeing revenues come in to support our social
programs. The key changes are lowering the marginal rates,
expanding exemptions for individuals and families, reducing
corporate income tax and reducing capital gains tax. These will
enhance Canada's competitive position.
Increased productivity will lead to increased revenues, and this
is an area where the Liberals cannot connect the dots, so that
the federal government can continue to provide the quality of
health care and social services that the people of Canada rely
on.
[Translation]
Such changes—reducing the maximum marginal rate, providing
exemptions to all taxpayers, reducing corporate tax rates and
taxes on capital gains and improving Canada's
competitiveness—will ensure that we do not suffer from the more
aggressive economic measures taken in the United States.
Increased productivity will result in greater revenues, which
will allow the federal government to continue to offer the
health care and social services that Canadians need.
[English]
If these steps are not taken, the Canadian dollar will continue
to go down and Canadian businesses which are attractive because
of the hard work of Canadians will increasingly be purchased by
Americans. That will then cause a rise in the concern from the
Liberals to bring in foreign investment restrictions. All of
these things will lead to a wrong conclusion.
We have seen today, announced only a couple of hours ago, the
purchase of a dearly beloved team, Les Canadiens. The Montreal
Canadiens have been purchased by an American business. The key
reasons the Americans were able to purchase the team were
indicated: high taxes which inhibited Canadians from buying it, a
low Canadian dollar and the U.S. salaries. That is an indicator
of what is happening. The Liberals continue to allow Canadian
business to be underpriced and purchased by American business.
Tax cuts and debt reduction are a crucial first step to
empowering the Canadian economy and perhaps the most single
important contributor to our competitive position, but they are
not the only answer. A strong system of education and training,
good industrial and transportation infrastructure, and support
for research and development are essential components for future
economic growth. The Canadian Alliance recognizes that. The
government, however, claims it cannot lower taxes too much
because it needs the increased revenues to allow for government
investments in the economy.
The government still does not get it. It does not understand
that reducing taxes and debt and investing in needed economic and
social infrastructure are complementary goals. By reducing
taxes, reducing the debt, invigorating the economy and increasing
revenues, it is with an invigorated type of fiscal position that
we can support the social programs Canadians want. That is the
approach that must be taken.
Too often when the government makes public investments, the
investments take the form of creating new entitlement programs,
such as subsidies which dispense grants and loans to favoured
industries from favoured regions of the country or programs which
maximize the visibility of the federal government and its bronze
plaques without maximizing economic efficiency.
We welcome the throne speech commitment to double R and D and
to strengthen universities and government labs, but the emphasis
here should be investment in basic scientific research through
such programs as Canada's research granting councils and the
National Research Council rather than the government trying to
second guess industry about which applied technologies or new
products to pursue through industrial subsidies. That is not the
most effective way of approaching it.
Investing in basic R and D and science is not a frill. It is
essential and we recognize that. It is essential for building a
better economy and a better society. As a matter of fact, to put
it in terms that the government may understand, it is reported
that when the great British Prime Minister Sir William Gladstone
met Michael Faraday, the inventor of the electric dynamo, he
asked him whether electricity would ever be of any use, to which
Faraday replied “Yes, sir. One day you will be able to tax
it”.
We are trying to help the government connect the dots on
economic growth. We will call on the government to increase its
investment in infrastructure, in particular the rebuilding of the
crumbling highway system.
1545
Technological infrastructure is necessary. The national fibre
optic backbone network needs to be looked at. Canadians from
coast to coast are also demanding a serious upgrade of the
Trans-Canada Highway. The Liberals have promised that. Where
are the specifics on that?
We will call on the government to increase its contribution to
post-secondary education through the CHST and by encouraging
greater information sharing and co-operation among colleges,
universities and provinces, not by coming up with new programs
that duplicate what is happening in the provinces and waste
dollars that could and should be going to students.
Industrial subsidies through Technology Partnerships Canada or
the Export Development Corporation must be phased out and
eliminated. As John Roth of Nortel has said, Canadian business
must learn to stand on its own two feet. We can help it do that
with proper tax policies.
The energy and creativity of Canadian business should not be
diverted into the game of seeking subsidies and grants from
government. It should be assisted through low taxes, a skilled
workforce, an excellent public infrastructure, and people who are
empowered and equipped to take on the world. That is the path to
sustainable economic growth.
We also need to look at empowering our communities and building
a stronger society. Economic growth, jobs and wealth are not the
only things that point to health in a society. There are many
measures of social progress that cannot be built into the GDP. As
well as a strong economy we must ensure a strong society.
Empowering Canadians means empowering Canadian communities and
civil society. We must ensure we have quality health care that
is second to none. We must ensure that our children are nurtured
in strong families and educated in excellent schools. We must
ensure that our seniors have dignity in their retirement years.
We must ensure that our streets and communities are safe.
The Liberals too often see the balance between a strong economy
and a strong society as a trade-off. The two are complementary.
They believe that more government taxation and regulation of the
economy are necessary to provide the types of programs that lead
to strong communities, but we believe a free and prosperous
economy goes hand in hand with a stronger society and stronger
communities.
Invasive, dominating, centralized government programs do not
create a strong society. However, government can empower and
equip citizens, families, charities, community groups and others
at the local level who are themselves the foundation of a strong
and flourishing civil society.
Let us apply the philosophy of empowerment to our communities
and to programs like the national health care system. There is a
lot of ongoing debate today about Canada's public medical system
after years of cutbacks and neglect from the federal Liberals.
As Dr. Peter Barrett of the Canadian Medical Association stated,
the serious problems facing medicare today can be labelled a
health care crisis. For patients awaiting health services it is
a personal crisis. He goes on to say that doctors and nurses on
the frontline know it is a crisis.
The waiting lists continue and have increased dramatically under
this government. Average wait times between seeing a general
practitioner and receiving treatment have increased from 9.3
weeks in 1993 to 14 weeks in 1999. This has severe consequences.
Canada continues to lose doctors and nurses to the United
States. Eighteen doctors leave permanently for the United States
for every one doctor who comes north.
Canada rates 23 out of 29 in the OECD when it comes to doctors
per capita. That is not acceptable. We are far behind many OECD
countries in terms of providing access to medical technologies.
Yet with all of these difficulties, the Liberal government
refuses to consider genuine reforms to our system of health care.
The Canadian Alliance, the official opposition, is firmly and
fully committed to a publicly insured health care system that
respects the five principles of the Canada Health Act. Let us be
very clear on that.
Let us also be clear that the Canadian Alliance, the official
opposition, is committed to preserving, maintaining and
strengthening the Canadian health care system within the letter
and spirit of the Canada Health Act. Indeed we believe there
should be a sixth principle added to the Canada Health Act: the
principle of stable funding.
The federal government should increase funding to the provinces
for this fiscal year to bring the 2001 federal contribution to
medicare through the CHST back to the level of 1995, before it
ripped it away from the provinces.
We also need to guarantee that level of funding for the next five
years. However money is not the only answer. There must be true
reform to the system.
1550
Over the next few months we will be consulting with doctors,
nurses, patients, practitioners and citizens to find new
approaches to health care. We need to encourage creativity and
innovation. We need to listen to what is happening and bring
forward the types of reforms that will truly strengthen our
system.
As we do this, we need to respect the positions that are being
articulated and not mischaracterize the positions of others. We
will debate them fairly and show why they are faulty. We cannot
have a clear and open discussion on this issue when people resort
to the type of name that knock people off the desire to have a
debate.
We want to see the health care system improved and maintained
under the five principles of the health care act. We believe our
approach would allow Canada to develop the best system in the
world. That is not the case now. It can be with the proposals
that we look forward to.
The same philosophy of empowerment should be applied to other
areas of the Canadian social union. Empowering Canadians means
empowering our aboriginal communities.
In its throne speech the government devoted much attention, and
rightly so, to the problems faced by aboriginal Canadians. With
a growing younger population but continuing chronic poverty, the
situation of Canada's aboriginal communities must be addressed.
I am willing to admit that the government has proposed a few
positive initiatives. The promise to introduce more democratic
accountability to band governments is a crucial step and one that
we have been advocating for years. We will of course support
that.
We will examine carefully the legislation that the government
brings forward. We will consult with aboriginal Canadians and
offer positive suggestions on how to ensure accountability.
Many of the government's proposals will only deepen its culture
of invasiveness and shackle aboriginal Canadians to the cycle of
dependency that has led to many of the problems they are dealing
with. Most aboriginals see the Indian Act as archaic and
destructive, yet the government continues to cling to it. Why?
Canada's aboriginal communities need to be empowered to solve
their own problems and drive economic growth in their own
communities while knowing that existing treaty rights will be
respected. That is a key point that we must say over and over
again.
It is crucial that both local bands and status Indians be able
to choose to participate in the free market economy on an equal
footing with other Canadians. Bands should be able to buy and
sell property. Individual aboriginal families should be able to
enjoy the dignity of home ownership, if that is their wish, the
same as other Canadians.
The government can certainly play a role in helping aboriginal
economic development get started, but programs need to be
designed with autonomy and self-sustainability as the goal.
That is the approach that will work, not the one of massive
intervention and invasiveness that the Liberals have pursued for
too many years, even while the present Prime Minister was the
minister of that particular department. We need to be doing
this.
The throne speech also discussed the government's ongoing
children's agenda. Nothing could be more important than our
children and their healthy development.
Again we have to question whether the federal government is the
best placed institution to judge children's needs or whether the
answer lies in empowering and equipping Canadian families to make
their own choices in their children's best interests.
That is why we favour a universal per child tax credit so
families can make their own choices, rather than an
interventionist, one size fits all child care program.
That is why we favour equalizing the personal and spousal
exemptions to end discrimination between one income and two
income families. It is time we began treating all family
decisions respectfully and equally.
We support the existing child tax credit to help lower income
families with children. Indeed, it is a far better approach to
getting children out of poverty than the subsidized approach of
one size fits all that the Liberal government continues to invade
us with.
We must also pay attention to the root causes of child poverty.
We salute the throne speech's acknowledgement of both this and
the effort and support that need to go to single parents who are
raising children, many times in difficult circumstances.
We must acknowledge that a significant factor in predicting
child poverty is the issue of fatherlessness.
We must not be afraid to discuss that. We need to look at this
and other family issues with compassion, not finger pointing, and
look to enhancing the factors which truly strengthen family
bonds.
1555
We also need to look carefully at our tax laws, divorce laws and
social programs, which may have contributed perhaps inadvertently
to weakening family bonds, and at what factors strengthen those
bonds.
We applaud the commitment in the throne speech to modernize
child support, custody and access laws. We hope the government
will be guided by the parliamentary joint committee report on
child custody and access, which had many useful recommendations,
including how to keep both parents involved in the welfare of
their children even after a marriage or a relationship has broken
down.
Government must help strengthen the position of families through
increased parental choice in child care, strengthening the
position of families in our tax code, and recognizing the value
of families in law. These are positions of the Canadian
Alliance, the official opposition.
Empowering Canadians also means empowering groups of citizens
through voluntary and charitable organizations at the local level
to meet their social needs. Charities, whether they are faith
based groups such as Catholic Social Services or community based
groups, need more financial support from the federal government
but not federal invasiveness.
We need to examine new legislation to support charities to
replace the arcane common law rules that govern them, which have
led to perverse results in many instances, such as community
music groups being denied charitable status while terrorist
fronts receive it. We need to take a common sense look at these.
Charitable groups of all types have done much to educate
children, care for the sick, feed and clothe the poor. The
contributions of all such groups should be recognized and
encouraged.
Although faith based institutions make up nearly half of all
registered societies in Canada, they had virtually no input into
the Prime Minister's task force on the voluntary sector. That
was an oversight.
We have seen the federal government, in an interesting
situation, name churches as co-defendants in lawsuits against the
federal government for its treatment of native children under its
care. The government must look at these lawsuits which threaten
the survival of entire denominations that have done and continue
to do much to meet the spiritual, emotional and physical needs of
Canadians.
We must acknowledge wrongdoings that have happened. We are
absolutely committed to that. We must ensure that justice is
done in relation to those wrongdoings. Surely that can be done
without eliminating entire organizations which have had a long
history of helping and strengthening our communities.
Empowering Canadians, individuals and groups is what we need to
be doing. That will ensure communities are safe from the threat
of crime and violence.
Over the past seven years the government has adopted the
rhetoric of getting tough on crime and on the causes of crime.
However, too often the government has put the rights of accused
criminals above the rights of victims and has ignored police and
local communities. Canadians are saying it is time to change
that focus.
For seven years we looked forward expectantly and heard promises
to reform the Young Offenders Act. Let us get to work on this.
Let us acknowledge that citizens need protection from serious
repeat offenders and that we need to apply preventive and caring
approaches to young people who are at risk of becoming serious
offenders.
Even in the past week the Supreme Court of Canada, while
upholding the essence of Canada's law against the possession of
child pornography, has read in certain exceptions to the law that
three of the justices fear may cause harm to children and hamper
the prosecution of these cases.
The government acted too slowly in the Sharpe matter, the B.C.
decision. It failed in its responsibility to maintain the law
while the case worked its way through the courts and caused many
prosecutions to be abandoned.
It is now the government's responsibility, and ours with it, to
ensure that these supposedly minor exceptions do not provide
loopholes for those who would exploit our children and steal
their innocence.
Empowering Canadians means preserving the natural environment,
the environment that we depend on for our resources, our economy
and the health of our communities.
We encourage responsible measures to protect the environment and
work co-operatively with the provincial and municipal agencies
and governments that are closest to the challenges.
1600
We understand that the government intends to bring forward a new
endangered species bill in this session. There have been hints
that the legislation may be improved to address the valid
concerns of rural Canadians regarding fair compensation. The
Minister of the Environment claims to have learned from the
abysmal implementation of Bill C-68 how crucial and how important
it is to work with rural Canadians and not try to criminalize
their traditional ways of life.
We will examine the new bill with interest. We will consult
with Canadians. We want to preserve the diversity of Canada's
natural species and balance that with the needs of local
communities in the areas most affected.
We must also empower Canadian farmers and rural Canadians in
resource dependent communities. The federal government has not
only ignored the voice of rural Canadians when it comes to
firearms control and balancing the preservation of natural
species, but it has also ignored the entire area of agriculture
and natural resource management. After seven years the
government has failed to help struggling farm families during the
ongoing farm crisis. We meet those families every day.
AIDA help was supposed to be delivered two years ago but only
50% of that money has been distributed. Fifty per cent of claims
from 1999 remains unprocessed while family farms move into
bankruptcy. Farmers need immediate assistance. This promised
money must go to farmers before the next spring seeding. They
need the help now.
We will continue to work with farmers and the agricultural
community to aggressively push the government to move toward
ensuring that farmers get the help they need and that farm
families are not driven from their lands.
The root causes of the farm income crisis must also be
addressed. Foreign subsidies must be aggressively negotiated
downward. Where is the federal government on this particular
process? Red tape and bureaucracy must be cut and federal
assistance programs must be redesigned so that they meet the
needs of the farmers rather than support bureaucracy.
Governments need to look at farmers' input costs. They are
burdened with fees and high taxes on everything they buy and with
skyrocketing fuel costs. Why does the federal government refuse
to lower some of its own fees and charges to the agricultural
community? This must be done.
We have seen in the recent unjustified blockade of Prince Edward
Island potatoes how the government has failed farmers and has
failed to maintain good relationships with our largest trading
partner, the United States. Not only did the government fail to
negotiate a timely solution to the P.E.I. dispute, the minister
of agriculture was absent at critical times during the
negotiations. Even though Canadian officials demonstrated that
there was no scientific merit to any blockade of those P.E.I.
potatoes, the government has been unable to negotiate a solution.
Time and again the government has failed to get results in
reducing international subsidies, which are now choking our
farmers. Results can be obtained but we need to be tough and we
need to use the leverage available to us in the negotiating
process. In fact our farmers are being forced to compete against
foreign subsidies that have actually risen in the last few years.
Where is the federal government in terms of protecting our
farmers?
The government must be more aggressive in pursuing these
subsidies. For example, the collective buying power of
free trading nations should and could be used to push the
protectionist countries back to the bargaining table. Where is
the government in terms of trying to organize that? As I visit
farmers from coast to coast, too many have told me that they do
not know if they can survive the winter.
Let us have no more Liberal excuses. It is time for action:
reduce costs, reduce foreign subsidies and set Canadian farmers
free to feed the world as we know they can do. That is what
empowering Canadian agriculture means for Canadian farmers.
A similar problem confronts us in a resource based industry
crucial to the livelihood of rural Canadians with the ongoing
softwood lumber dispute with the United States. The government
knows that on March 31 the existing softwood lumber agreement
with the United States will expire. We are hearing reports that
the government is not on this issue and that it is not moving
rapidly to make sure our concerns are on the table.
People paid more for homes, furniture and other goods because of
this flawed agreement, but provincial governments and industries
still have not seen a clear strategy from the federal government
on this. Where is the government?
These ongoing disputes over agriculture and lumber show how
important Canada's relations really are with our strongest ally
and our largest trading partner, the United States. We need to
have good relations. We need to be strong negotiators but we
need to have positive relations.
1605
The government over the past seven years seems to have taken
more pleasure in tweaking the nose of our trading partner,
whether by appearing to favour the Castro regime in Cuba or
simplistically opposing the American position on various
international treaties or most recently avoiding the discussion
of a proposed continental anti-ballistic missile defence shield.
Incredibly, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, at his recent
meeting with the U.S. secretary of state, said Canada would
approve of this defence system if it could convince the Russians
and Chinese to agree first.
The House of Commons needs to be empowered in a non-partisan way
to discuss foreign policy with all facts available and with input
from our constituents duly on the table. Issues such as the
terrorist threat from rogue nations are too important to be
decided on the political whims of the Prime Minister's office.
These are important issues for Canadians. They must be discussed
here in the Chamber.
There is no mention in the throne speech of the need to increase
support for our armed forces nor to modernize their equipment. We
are losing our influence in NATO and other international
organizations because we have reduced our support for our armed
forces. They are not properly equipped when we send them to
foreign fields and sometimes we cannot effectively bring them
home from those fields. That has to change.
How seriously do we think American trade negotiators will be
told to take Canadian concerns if they know that Canada is not
pulling its weight in our collective defence and may be out to
embarrass the United States diplomatically at the next
international meeting? These issues are tied together.
We need to take a tough position with the United States but one
that signals that we recognize it is actually an ally. We
must work together, be tough for Canadian interests but recognize
the greater diplomatic realities. Canada needs to develop a
mature relationship with the United States based on trust and
mutual understanding.
I hope that the partisan position of the government toward the
new administration has not handicapped this relationship and
therefore diminished our chances of success as we negotiate
everything from farm subsidies to softwood lumber to
environmental accords.
Yes, it was good to see in the Speech from the Throne an
acknowledgement of freer trade with the Americas. We will
support that. However, after the photo ops are over Canada must
aggressively pursue getting a trade deal that meets the interests
of Canadian workers, farmers, businesses and consumers.
We need to look at the possibilities of trade expansion,
including the United Kingdom and our possible linkages with
NAFTA. Empowering Canadians means taking a responsible approach
on the world stage that puts a clear priority on the security and
interests of Canadians.
Empowering Canadians above all else means empowering Canadian
citizens to play a more active role in governing their country.
Perhaps the area where the government has most failed to empower
Canadians is in failing to empower its elected representatives,
whether they are MPs elected federally who are routinely ignored
by an all powerful executive branch run out of the Prime
Minister's office or at other levels of government whose
constitutional authority is routinely usurped by the federal
government.
Respecting, not rejecting, the elected members of parliament
sent to Ottawa by Canadians, and respecting the jurisdiction of
provincial governments that have democratic mandates no less
legitimate than those of the House, is in fact respecting and
empowering Canadian people.
We know that many of the members in the last House, even on the
government side, felt frustrated. They told us these things.
They were unable to properly represent their constituents as
legislators. Liberal MPs have regularly been forced to vote
against their will and the will of their constituents on issues
ranging from gun control to hepatitis C compensation to high
taxes on gasoline.
In the last election it was fascinating to go into those MPs
constituencies and hear them scrambling to speak on behalf of
their constituents instead of the Prime Minister's Office. When
members of parliament are not treated with respect then the
Canadian people who sent them there are not being treated with
respect. Citizens feel that disrespect and that contributes to a
sense of alienation.
The government mentioned parliamentary reform in the throne
speech. My heart skipped a beat and hope increased when I heard
about voting procedures and increased reform in the House of
Commons. It said it would accomplish that by increasing
resources to the parliamentary library.
1610
I love taking guests to the library. It is a fabulous resource
and the people who work there are to be acknowledged. However,
that is going to do nothing to increase the free voting that can
happen in this particular assembly.
We intend to make these issues central in this session and democratic
reform will be one of the central issues in this parliament.
You understand, Mr. Speaker, the importance of this and the
tradition of the Chamber. All members have a responsibility to
foster and pursue that ideal. We in the official opposition
pledge ourselves to the task.
I would say to the Prime Minister that I believe he has the
right to look for a legacy. I believe that in all sincerity. I
believe one day that there will be a legacy of a building that
will crumble, a highway that will become potholed or a mountain
top that may blow its stack.
The Prime Minister has served with distinction and he deserves a
more fitting legacy. What greater legacy to leave for this
century than an opening of parliamentary freedom, the freedom of
his own MPs to vote. What a legacy for him to leave. Unless he
changes, history will record that parliament was used to rubber
stamp plans drawn up in the back rooms of his office rather than
the plans that came from the living rooms of the Canadian people.
The Canadian Alliance has proposed constructive alternatives to
make the House work better. We have grouped them in a package
that we call “Building Trust”. We have made 12 concrete
suggestions, 12 simple steps that would free members of
parliament to represent their constituents. It is a 12 step
program for those who are addicted to power. It will require
politicians to put their trust in the hands of a power higher
than themselves and that power is the Canadian people.
We will be advancing those causes. We will also be advancing
the cause and joining with the Liberals in their promise of 1993
that the office of the ethics counsellor be transformed into a
truly independent ethics commissioner's office, reporting
directly to parliament. We are going to support them on that.
We know there is going to be great movement there.
These measures and others contained in our proposals called
“Building Trust” will go a long way to reducing the alienation
that Canadians feel.
Alienation is not just a regional phenomenon. The deepest
alienation of all is between government and a disaffected
Canadian people. Voter turnout in the last federal election fell
to an all time low, near 61%. Almost two in every five eligible
Canadian voters said “none of the above”. This is not something
any of us can be proud of. It is something that all parties
should work to address. We can do this by empowering members of
parliament to truly represent their constituents. That would
allow Canadians to feel empowered.
I was born in Ontario and raised in Montreal. I lived and
worked in the maritimes, British Columbia, Alberta and the
Arctic. I love Canada. I see, I understand and I know that the
yearning in the hearts of Canadians in these areas is similar
from coast to coast. These are elements of Canadian unity.
Some people in Quebec and a few other regions say that Canada
does not work and that we should give up on the federal approach.
I will never give up on this country. If Canada is not working
as well as it should, then it is our job to make it work, to put
aside the partisan differences, to give up those corridors of
power and allow Canadian citizens to be empowered to make this
country everything it can be.
The Prime Minister was challenged again today on the fact that
he spends more time in the United States than he does in western
Canada. I am willing to take him at his word when he says he
wants to see relations improve with western Canada.
There have been recent proposals in western Canada from a group
of prominent citizens who have acknowledged that improvements can
be made in the standard of life for Canadians. We are not
talking about massive devolution of power. This is how the Prime
Minister tries to avoid a discussion on balancing constitutional
provisions between the provinces and the federal government.
1615
I hesitate to do this because I really do not want his
popularity to go up, but I am willing to suggest that the Prime
Minister reach out to western Canada. The next time there is an
opportunity for a Senate appointment, he should appoint a senator from the
province of Alberta. It has already elected its senators in
waiting. If he does that, he could once again dare to venture
into places like Calgary, Edmonton, Cochrane and Fort McMurray
and he would be received happily there.
It is time we turned the page on the entitlement approach to
government programs and the desire of the government to leave
greater and greater levels of spending as its only legacy. It is
time we turned the page. It is time to empower Canadians
socially to be able to handle their local challenges. It is time
to empower Canadians democratically. It is time to empower us
economically.
We can do these things. Hope runs eternal. I have hope and a
sense of optimism that we do not have to wait until the next
election. We have already talked to some MPs from across the
floor who have said they are interested in empowering Canadians.
I am sure they will agree that the motions we are bringing
forward will empower all Canadians. I have great optimism that
can happen.
In the meantime, although the government has identified some
positive initiatives that we can support, it has failed to
provided us with an empowering vision for Canadians in its Speech
from the Throne.
Therefore, reluctantly I move that the motion be amended by
adding:
And this House regrets to inform Your Excellency that although
there are a few initiatives in the Speech from the Throne worthy
of support, your advisors have not provided the leadership
Canadians deserve from a new government by their failure to
commit to real tax relief, fair criminal justice reform,
stabilizing social programs, empowering Members of Parliament to
vote freely on behalf of their constituents, fighting for the
family farm and failing to embark on a new era of respect and
co-operation with the provinces.
We look forward to seeing Canada truly empowered and Canadians
becoming everything they can be within their field of dreams.
1620
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my first words in the debate are to congratulate you on
your election as Speaker of the House of Commons. I also
congratulate the others who have been appointed to help you in
your job.
I congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in
Reply to the Speech from the Throne. The members for
Northumberland and Laval East are new to the House. Judging from
their speeches yesterday, both clearly have bright futures ahead
of them.
I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his speech. I
was very impressed with how many times he approved the spending
of the government. He was happy with every program that we were
planning: infrastructure, research and development and the
children's agenda. I would like to thank him. He has become a
spender. It will be noted by the Canadian people.
Indeed, as one who has been in the House for some years now, I
welcome and congratulate all the new members, whatever their
party affiliation.
It is an honour and a great privilege to serve in the House of
Commons. Whether one is elected for the first time or the 12th
time, or in the case of the Deputy Prime Minister, the 13th time,
one has to know it is a humbling experience to be chosen by your
fellow citizens to represent them in the Parliament of Canada.
Only Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the member next to me managed to be
elected 13 times to the House.
1625
No one comes here for the money. No one comes here for the
hours of work. All of us, regardless of party, come here for the
same reason: to serve our constituents as best we can and to
contribute, to the best of our abilities, to making our country a
better place. Regardless of party, we all have the obligation,
by our words and our deeds, to dedicate ourselves to building
trust in our institutions and our democracy.
We should remember what Churchill said about democracy. He said
it is “The worst system of government in the world...except for
all the rest”. He was right. Of course improvements can always
be made, but there should be no doubt that Canada's parliament
serves our country very well.
Like any human institution, the House of Commons is not perfect.
It can be strengthened. Over the years many changes have been
made to improve parliament and more will be made to bring
parliament into the 21st century.
The House leader is working with his colleagues from all parties
on reforms that will make the House work even better for the
benefit of all Canadians, for example, electronic voting, more
research support for committees and more bills referred to
committee at first reading.
I was happy to hear the Leader of the Opposition speak about
reforms a few minutes ago but he should not try to teach us too
much. He was the house leader in the Alberta legislature for
many years and was in some very nice situations. For example,
when he was Alberta's house leader, he questioned the need for
the legislature to have a fall sitting. He said that the longer
the legislature sat, the greater the temptation was “to come up
with new laws and regulations”. He also said “Albertans would
rather see us shout at each other on our own time”. I could go
on. At one time the legislature sat for 36 days until he finally
said that was enough and that it had to adjourn.
We have no great lessons to learn. We will be listening but we
will certainly not do what he was doing in Alberta.
Last November 27, the people of Canada gave the government a new
mandate. I am particularly proud that we Liberals have members
on this side and in the corner on the other side. They have the
best spot because they can see more than the ones behind us and
are in a better position to tell me when they do not agree with
me. What is very important is that we have members from every
province and every territory, which proves that we are truly a
national government.
Of course I recognize, as is always the case in a democracy,
that many Canadians voted for the other parties. In some
provinces we do not have as many members as we would like. We
will be working very hard as a government to ensure that many
more Liberal members from western Canada will be here after the
next election. My pledge is that the government will listen to
all Canadians, wherever they live in Canada, and will govern in
the interests of all Canadians, regardless of who they voted for.
We have been given a mandate by the people of Canada to move
beyond old disputes, old fights, old problems and old solutions;
a mandate to set ambitious goals and objectives for a strong,
united Canada for the years to come; a mandate to build on the
solid foundations that have been put in place since we assumed
office; a mandate to prepare the country for the fast paced
change the new economy demands; and to bring the best of Canada
into the 21st century by building an innovative economy, by
ensuring social inclusion and by strengthening our collective
voice in the world.
1630
These are the themes I will focus on today. My ministers will
address in more detail other elements of the government's agenda
during the course of this debate.
No country can look forward to the new century with more
confidence than Canada. We will make this first decade of the
21st century an exceptional decade for Canadians, a decade marked
by the pursuit of excellence and the sharing of opportunity.
When we formed the government more than seven years ago, we came
here with a vision of the country we wanted to build and of the
values and principles that will guide our actions, a distinct
Canadian way, a distinct Canadian model.
Our vision and our purpose have not changed: a society of
excellence with the commitment to success, where prosperity is
not limited to the few but is shared and created by the many;
where every child gets the right start in life; where young
people have a chance to grow and be the best at whatever they
choose to do; where citizens have access to the skills and
knowledge they need to excel; where citizens, regardless of
income, receive quality health services; where families enjoy
strong, safe communities and a clean, healthy environment; and
where Canadians work together with other countries to promote
peace, cultural diversity, human purpose and the benefits of the
new global economy.
We understand that it is not possible to do everything at once,
that the secret to success in governing is to make progress
pragmatically in a step by step manner and with boldness where
necessary, to set broad goals and objectives, to make choices
based on the values that have made Canada strong, and to bring
about major change in a manner that is sustainable and
affordable. That is exactly what we have done over the last
seven years. That is the approach to governing that has been
endorsed and endorsed again by the people of Canada in three
successive elections. That is the approach we will continue to
take.
We set out to restore fiscal sovereignty to regain the capacity
to make choices for the future. We have succeeded beyond
anyone's wildest expectations. We remain firmly committed, as we
go forward, to balanced budgets, debt reduction, and a
competitive tax environment for investment and entrepreneurship.
There is obviously uncertainty today about the short term
prospects for the United States economy. The government will
closely monitor developments in the United States and in the
global economy and their possible impact on Canada. That being
said, the success of our economic policies has put us in a better
position than ever to manage in the case of a temporary slowdown
in the United States economy. We have every reason to believe
that our economy will outperform our major competitors and
trading partners this year.
1635
A healthy fiscal climate is not an end in itself. It is the
essential prerequisite for all social and economic investments
that government must make, in collaboration with its partners, to
build a prosperous country where opportunity can be shared by
all.
We on this side of the House believe that an activist government
can be a force for good in society. An activist government
requires a first class public service. I am proud of our public
service. The government will take all necessary steps to ensure
that we continue to have the talent necessary for a public
service that is committed to excellence, and we will make the
necessary reforms to modernize the public service for the
requirements of the 21st century.
[Translation]
We set out more than seven years ago to do our part as a
government to build a more innovative economy: the Canada
Foundation for Innovation, the Networks of Centres of
Excellence, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the 2000
Canada research chairs, the increases in support to the granting
councils, the changes in our corporate tax rates and our capital
gains tax rates and making Canada one of the most connected
countries in the world.
We have built a strong foundation, but we cannot rest on our
achievements, otherwise the world will pass us by. In the 21st
century our economic and social goals must be pursued
hand in hand. Let the world see in Canada a society marked by
innovation and inclusion, by excellence and justice.
To achieve this we have a plan which combines innovation, skills
and learning, and a commitment to ensure all of our children are
given the chance to realize their potential.
Let me start with innovation. In the new economy, the race goes
to the quick. This is true of high technology, but applies as
well to virtually all sectors from resource extraction to
farming to merchandising.
Canada must have one of the most innovative economies in the
world. A key element in getting there is to ensure that our
research and development effort per capita is among the top
five countries in the world.
To achieve this objective, the government has a five part
plan.
First, it will at least double the current federal investment in
research and development by the year 2010. The government over
the course of its mandate will increase its investment in the
granting councils. It will do more for Genome Canada and the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research and for research within
government. This will make Canada the place to be for world class
researchers. It will strengthen our economy and our society.
Second, it will build on what we have already done to make Canadian
universities the place to be for research excellence and a
place where the best and the brightest want to come. The
government will work with the university community to assist our
universities so that they have the resources necessary to fully
benefit from federally sponsored research activities.
Third it will accelerate Canada's ability to commercialize research
discoveries and to turn them into new products and services.
1640
Fourth, it will pursue a global strategy for Canadian science and
technology. Canada must be at the forefront of collaborative
international research which expands the frontiers of knowledge.
Fifth, it will work with the private sector to determine the best
ways to make broad band Internet access available to all
communities in Canada by the year 2004.
However, our research commitment as a country must not be that of the
federal government alone. It must be a national endeavour.
Today I challenge the private sector and the provinces to
devote more of their resources in the years ahead to making
Canada one of the leaders in the world in research and
development.
The transition to the new economy is not about any one sector of
the economy alone. Economic success across all sectors of the
economy depends more than ever on human enterprise, ingenuity
and creativity. It depends fundamentally on our human talent. In
this context, our most important investments are the investments
we make in people.
I want Canada to be seen throughout the world as having the most
skilled and the most talented labour market force anywhere. That
has to be a national goal and a national effort.
Learning does not take place in school alone.
From early childhood development programming to the public
school system to post-secondary institutions and to on the job
training, Canada has all the elements of an evolving national
infrastructure for lifelong learning. All governments, the
private sector and educational institutions must work together
to enhance this national infrastructure for the benefit of
Canadians.
For its part, the Government of Canada has invested
significantly over the course of our first two mandates to help
to make Canada the most talented and skilled place in the
world. From Canada education savings grants to help parents save
for their children's education to increases in the education
tax credit to the Canada millennium scholarships for today's
students to new rules for RRSPs to help Canadians finance
retraining and skills upgrading and to new Canada study grants for
students with dependants and other similar programs.
However, there is still much to do and this government is prepared
to play its full part in this national effort.
[English]
We want at least one million additional Canadian adults of
working age to be able to improve their skills. Therefore, we
will create registered individual learning accounts to make it
easier for Canadians to plan for and finance their learning
needs.
We will ensure that our youth employment programs reach out to
youth at risk to help those who have the most difficulty in
making the transition from school to work.
We will do our part to ensure that those who most need training
are eligible for training funds. A national effort to have the
most talented and skilled labour force requires the support and
collaboration of the provinces and of the private and voluntary
sectors.
We will be inviting them to jointly launch with us a national
literacy initiative. We must raise the level of literacy in
Canada because too many Canadians lack the literacy levels
necessary for the new economy.
1645
Canada needs more skilled workers. We must do better as a
country to attract highly skilled immigrants. As a federal
government, we will take the necessary steps to make sure that
unnecessary barriers are not placed in their way. In a global
economy, Canada must do better to recognize quality credentials
earned abroad.
I urge provincial governments to revise their policies with
respect to the recognition of foreign credentials of new
Canadians. In Europe, doctors can move from one country to
another but in Canada many professions cannot do that. It is
protectionism within each province. It is detrimental to all
Canadians because some professions are not open even for
Canadians to move let alone people with great competence who come
to Canada where a professional body refuses to recognize them. I
invite the provinces to help us in this field.
I urge provinces to give life to the social union framework and
move quickly to ensure the full mobility of Canadian students and
other Canadians with Canadian credentials across the country.
Elementary and high school education in Canada falls within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. I know that each
provincial government takes its obligation very seriously. Each
province works very hard to provide high quality public
education. However, we all know that in the knowledge economy
those who drop out of school are also dropping out of
opportunity. The school dropout rate remains too high in Canada.
We cannot afford the social and economic costs when young people
become discouraged and drop out.
I want to challenge provincial governments to redouble their
efforts to ensure that those who are in school finish school and
that those who have dropped out come back.
We need literate, skilled, educated and healthy people to be a
world leading economy, but this in turn requires a truly
inclusive society. We cannot separate social and economic
priorities. Just as a strong economy allows us to pursue our
social values, an inclusive society is a prerequisite to a very
strong economy.
Through our progressive tax system, active measures and our
social safety net, Canada has avoided the worst social and
economic costs of exclusion. While incomes are now rising for
most families, there are still too many single parent families,
visible minorities, recent immigrants and aboriginal Canadians
living in poverty.
Canadians with disabilities still face too many barriers to
participation. We are determined to help families break out of the
poverty trap, to reverse the cycle of dependency and to help
parents realize their hopes and the dreams of their children. We
cannot afford the moral, human and economic costs of child
poverty.
1650
Economic growth and job creation are the most effective ways to
reduce poverty. There is no doubt about that. Tax cuts put more
money in the hands of families but they do not solve all our
social problems. Governments have an important role to play.
We need a balanced approach. We must find new and better ways
to promote opportunity and to ensure that the basic needs of all
are met. Nowhere is the need more important than for our
children and nowhere can we have a greater impact for building a
strong and inclusive Canada. It is not something the federal
government can do alone. It is something all of us have to work
on together.
We have made considerable progress over the last seven years and
we have done so in co-operation and collaboration with the
provinces. The national child benefit is the most important new
social program since medicare.
The early childhood development agreement of September 11 is a
further important step in the right direction. We must and we
will do more. Our goal must be that no child be excluded from
opportunity because of the debilitating effects of poverty and
that every child be given the right start in life.
The most urgent place to start is with aboriginal children.
Quite frankly, I am concerned that in the case of aboriginal
peoples we may be spending too much time, energy and money on the
past and not nearly enough on what is necessary to ensure a
bright future for the children of today and the children of
tomorrow.
Too often our spending does not reach those in the greatest
need. That must change. We must turn the page. From now on we
have to focus and target our investments on where we can achieve
the greatest good.
There are never enough resources to do everything. Our approach
will be to focus on the future and, most important, on the needs
of children. As a start we will significantly increase resources
dedicated to aboriginal head start, a program our government
started, a program that is working exceptionally well.
We must significantly reduce the incidence of fetal alcohol
syndrome in our aboriginal communities. We pledge to be part of
a national effort to achieve this goal. I will tell the House of
Commons that there is a member of parliament, the member for
Mississauga South, who has written books about the issue. He has
spoken about the issue in caucus and in the House for years. He
is a backbencher who had an idea that he felt strongly about. He
talked about it for years and now it has become one of the
priorities of the government.
We would be putting our heads in the sand if we did not
recognize as a society that there are too many young aboriginals
in the criminal justice system. We have to take the steps
required in our social and economic policies to reduce that
number. Our goal must be to reduce the number of aboriginal
people incarcerated or in conflict with the law. Within a
generation there should be no disparity in the incarceration
rates between aboriginals and the rest of Canadian society.
1655
These are ambitious objectives that will not be met easily.
Mistakes will be made along the way. All will not be achieved in
one mandate but we all have to be part of this national effort.
Its success or failure will say much about the type of country we
are.
[Translation]
Last September 11, we had a very successful first ministers
meeting here in Ottawa on health and on early childhood
development. Subsequently, we agreed with all the provinces on a
federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure program.
We have demonstrated time and again since we took office that
when we focus on the needs of the future, we can all work
together and that our federal system works well.
Canadians see beyond the borders of their province or region.
They are part of a larger community and they want their
governments to work co-operatively to reflect our common values
and give meaning to the Canadian experience. We can and must do
this in a manner that respects one another's responsibilities as
well as one another.
Our spirit of co-operation and collaboration tells me that we
can set very ambitious goals, that we can achieve these goals
together, and that a national effort can succeed in giving every
child a good start in life and real access to the opportunities
of Canadian society. We are prepared to do our part and I extend
my hand to my provincial colleagues to join in this great
national effort.
It took a generation working together to reduce the incidence of
poverty among seniors. It happened step by step, but we took a lot
of steps together. We cannot be complacent, but we have come a
long way.
We can and must make similar progress for children. We will not
do it overnight. There will be bumps along the way. It is my view
and that of my party that we must ensure that our children are a
national priority. We must make this great national objective a
major focus of what are always limited resources.
During the course of this mandate in the budgets that we bring
down we will establish an investment timetable that will allow
us to make real progress in ensuring opportunity for all Canadian
children.
Essential to opportunity and the well-being of Canadians young
and old is, of course, a modern health system and quality health
care. I referred a few minutes ago to the agreement of September
11 on health. We agreed on new investments, substantial
investments, but we also agreed on a plan. In the years ahead, we
will keep working together to support that plan.
Through collaboration, we will achieve our goal of timely access
to high quality health care available to all Canadians, regardless
of income or place of residence and we will report to
Canadians on our performance and our progress.
Today I reaffirm our commitment to work together with the
provinces and Canadians to bring medicare into the 21st century
to ensure its relevance to the needs of Canadians.
1700
We will work with and support provinces to make our health
system more integrated, more effective, more responsive and more
transparent.
We will do more on aboriginal health new technologies and
other strategies to assist people with disabilities.
On promoting healthy
living on strengthening health research
and on ensuring that we do everything necessary to provide a
modern system of medicare for the years ahead.
A safe, healthy environment is essential to the health of
Canadians and to the future of our children. We will accelerate
our efforts at home and internationally to foster a clean
environment. We will focus on air and water quality and on the
preservation of our natural heritage.
All of us have vivid memories of the last election campaign.
There were partisan rallies and visits to homes and factories throughout
Canada, but for me one event stands out above all the others.
It was a visit on a beautiful Saturday morning to the
conservatory of music in Victoria to listen to performances by
extraordinarily talented young Canadian musicians and to reflect on
the importance of the arts and culture as central to the fabric
of any society and to the Canadian fabric in particular.
In a globalized society, in a universe of hundreds of channels,
in the age of the Internet, it is more important than ever to
support Canadian culture.
In this mandate, the government will provide new support to
ensure that our cultural institutions, our performers and our
artists can play to the full the critical role of helping us know
ourselves and, as ambassadors to the world, share the best of
Canada.
We have developed over more than a century a distinctive
Canadian way. We have pursued a flexible approach that recognizes
the importance of individual and collective action and
responsibility. We have learned the value of working together in
common purpose in a federal system that permits diversity and
experimentation. We have recognized the advantage of our
linguistic duality and multicultural society. We have developed a
deep commitment to democracy and human rights. We have become a
model for the world.
During the course of this parliament, we will be playing an
active role in the international community. Whether through the
chairmanship of the G-20, by the Minister of Finance, hosting the
G-8 in 2002, or the very important meeting of the summit of the
Americas in Quebec City in April of this year, we will be working
to strengthen multilateral institutions for dialogue and
co-operation.
1705
We will increase our international development assistance to
expand opportunities for more countries to participate in the
benefits of globalization while promoting peace and human
security in the world.
[English]
We will be working very closely with the new administrations of
President Bush and President Fox. The United States is our most
important trading partner, our closest ally. I will be
travelling to Washington next week to meet with President Bush to
reaffirm the importance of our relationship.
I thank him because he was very gracious in calling Canada first
after he became president and because his secretary of state
received our Minister of Foreign Affairs first. Next Monday I
will be the first leader to meet with the new president. We will
discuss the importance of safe and efficient access to each
other's markets. We will be talking about accelerating the joint
work that has already begun to modernize our shared border to
facilitate trade and investment while ensuring security for both
countries.
I will also express the strong position of the Canadian
government and, I am sure, of the House of Commons of Canada that
our farmers should be able to compete on a level playing field
and that subsidy wars are in the interest of no one. It is a
very important item and one of the first I will discuss with him,
because I suspect it is the wish of members of all parties.
We have a great story to tell Americans and overseas investors
about the success of the Canadian economy, about Canada as a
place to invest, about Canada as a place of action and
excitement. We will be devoting much effort, with the help and
co-operation of the private sector and the provinces, to
promoting
Canada as a highly innovative, skilled economy that attracts and
keeps talent.
The government agenda for this parliament is a positive one. It
is moderate and forward looking. It is balanced but it is also
ambitious. It builds on what has made Canada the country it is
today.
Last fall, after the death of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Canadians
were moved to reflect on and discuss not only the Trudeau legacy
but the meaning of Canada and our attachment to it.
His vision was of a mature, confident Canada shaping its own
destiny, tied together by a common citizenship based on shared
rights and mutual responsibility; a bilingual Canada in which
citizens could enjoy and benefit from our rich French and English
heritage; a country respectful of the special place of aboriginal
people; a multicultural Canada open to the world and fully aware
of its global responsibilities; a just Canada in which
opportunity is truly equal.
We will take steps to commemorate his legacy in a way which both
reflects and furthers these values.
1710
This vision has shaped how the world sees Canada. It has helped
to define the Canadian model. Increasingly the world is seeing a
new Canada as well, a Canada built on this rich foundation but
also a Canada of exciting opportunity, advanced science,
leadership in new technologies and excellence in education, with
a skilled and innovative labour force, a Canada that is a place
to invest in and do business in. That is the Canada we must also
build in the weeks, months and years ahead: a Canada with a
dynamic new economy and strong, healthy communities, a Canada of
innovation and inclusion.
We are more than citizens of a single province or a single
region. We are more than just taxpayers. We are citizens of a
great country. We have responsibilities to each other. We need
a national government working in partnership with all Canadians
to assure our strong voice in the world, to assure a strong
economy, and to protect and strengthen the social fabric of our
society and the unity of our country. We on this side of the
House will provide that government.
As for me, I have been fighting for Canada all my
life and, believe it or not, I am just getting warmed up.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
first, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all
those who were elected this past November 27 and to extend a
particular welcome to my new colleagues.
We know that all hon. members want the House to be a true forum
for debate. All of us represent the population of Canada and we,
along with others of course, represent the population of Quebec.
All of us have the required legitimacy to express a variety of
opinions that characterize our distinctive societies.
There is one thing that strikes me in the Speech from the
Throne, one statement that I must make. Canada is constructing
itself in its own way, according to its own values, its way of
doing things, its objectives. That is legitimate; we acknowledge
that. Quebec does not, however, fit into this Canadian construct
and it too must construct itself within a world that is evolving
and changing at a dizzying pace.
There are two concrete examples of this. I am thinking of the
Young Offenders Act. The government tells us of the flexibility
within this legislation. I would remind my listeners that Quebec
possesses, without a doubt, the most efficient system for
rehabilitating young offenders. That is universally
acknowledged. There is a totally different vision across Canada,
one that is more punitive than rehabilitative.
We do not want to impose our system on others, nor do we want a
system that is not ours imposed upon us.
1715
The government speaks of flexibility. Yet as far as justice is
concerned, the weight of precedent, the weight of jurisprudence on
which our justice system is built, at least as far as criminal
law is concerned, knows no boundaries and will not stop at the
Quebec border. In other words, decisions taken elsewhere, within
a different mentality, might be used in a case in Quebec and lead
to a result that is totally different from the objective pursued
until now by the system in place within Quebec.
Why not remove Quebec from the application of this law,
especially since this does not involve the criminal code? We
are not talking about one criminal code for all of the country
and a different one for Quebec, although there are proposals in
this regard from the native peoples. In the case of young
offenders who do not come under the criminal code, we want a
different approach.
Why not apply the motion on the distinct society that this
government boasts of passing? This represents an opportunity
for the government to prove to us that the motion has some
meaning, that it recognizes Quebec's distinct nature, in the
case, for example, of the Young Offenders Act. There is a very
broad consensus in Quebec among all the political parties, among
all the stakeholders, from the police to social workers,
yet the federal government says “No. Things will be done only
one way, Ottawa's”.
The second example is that of parental leave. All the political
parties in Quebec, the Liberals, the ADQ and the PQ, and women's
groups, employers and unions all recognize and prefer by
far the plan proposed by the government of Quebec because it
is much better suited to modern realities. The Prime Minister talks
of modernism, of the rate of change in
the world, of our need to innovate and adapt to new realities.
This is an opportunity to prove it.
Why is the federal government opposed to the plan Quebec is
proposing? It had better not try to tell us that one complements
the other. A thorough examination reveals obstacles to fully
carrying out a plan that meets the needs of young people.
Why not take the time to negotiate? There is another year
before Quebec implements its program.
There is still time to sit down and look at the mechanisms that
we could set up to ensure that there is only one plan and that
young couples can fully benefit from it.
These are two consensuses that are dismissed out of hand by the
federal government, but that same government is about to get its
heavy hand in provincial jurisdictions. In fact, the Prime
Minister was even clearer in his speech when he said that the
federal government would get involved in education, yet
education is clearly a provincial jurisdiction. I also just
mentioned early childhood.
As for manpower, we thought the issue had been settled. An
agreement was reached in 1997, but the federal government is
back with a vengeance in that area.
Rarely have we seen a throne speech that touches on so many
areas that do not come under federal jurisdiction while saying
so little about issues that are under federal jurisdiction. This
is somewhat disturbing.
Is there anything positive in this speech? I recognize that
there are two good intentions that seem to be a step in the
right direction. First, the government seems to want to address
the causes of the problems experienced by aboriginal
communities, by the first nations.
This effort, or at least willingness, is laudable and we support
it. However, we want to see what it means in concrete terms.
Will the government follow the Erasmus-Dussault report, which was
accepted by the first nations and which we supported as soon as
it was released? Nothing has happened since that report was made
public.
We will see, based on the quality of the proposed legislation,
whether these good intentions translate into good legislative
measures.
The second interesting point in the throne speech is that the
government finally recognized the need for anti-gang legislation,
true anti-gang legislation. While the government denied that such a need
existed, we spent months asking questions to that effect in this
House.
1720
We pointed out, and rightly so, that if there are limits to the
freedom of speech—as shown recently by the ruling in a child
pornography case, which did not, however, raise the whole issue of
freedom of speech in Canada—then there must also be limits to
the freedom of association.
The government does acknowledge that stronger action is needed.
We will have to wait and see if it comes up with concrete
measures or only brings back something similar to what it put
forward in 1997. I have told the government that time is of the
essence. While we wait around, these groups are moving ahead. The
government is duty bound to solve this problem before June and
refer the issue to the supreme court.
There are some gaping holes, but mostly smaller holes, in this
speech first about how the surplus will be used. The election
was supposed to be on the surplus. That is what the Prime
Minister told us when he called the election but now we have
three options before us and we still do not know what the
Liberals' position is.
The Prime Minister said that 50% of the
surplus will go to debt and tax reduction and 50% to social
programs. In his mini budget, the finance minister said that 80%
of the surplus over a period of five years and not for the coming
year will go to deficit and debt reduction and 20% to social
programs. The star economist and new member for Markham, who used
to work, I believe, for the Royal Bank, predicted a $2 billion
deficit.
It would have been interesting to know from the Speech from the
Throne which takes precedence: the predictions of the hon. member
for Markham, the Prime Minister's speech or the Minister of
Finance's figures. The answer to this is still forthcoming. It
seems to me that it was the least that could have been expected.
Another significant omission is the whole matter of a
shipbuilding policy. We had asked for Canada to have a
shipbuilding policy. The Liberals voted in favour of a bill
introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
The Minister of Industry is in the process of touring Canada and
people are telling him that the Bloc Quebecois bill ought to have
been passed. There is not a single word in the throne speech on
this issue and I find that disconcerting given the intolerable
situation that prevails at the present time in British Columbia
and in Ontario, but particularly in the Atlantic provinces and
Quebec. There is nothing about this in the throne speech. This
is rather disconcerting.
Another promise, the one concerning the highway system, should
have been in the speech, but was also absent. My former
colleague, Mr. Daniel Turp, was greatly interested in this issue.
The member who replaced Mr. Turp in representing
Beauharnois—Salaberry, the public works minister and the
President of Treasury Board have all made a promise. They have
said “It's official; there will be $357 million for the
construction of two bridges”.
However, the letter from the Minister of Transport contradicts
this statement. His answers to our questions today also
contradict it.
Have we come back to the old policy of promising to build
bridges over the course of three or four elections? This seems
to be the case with the Liberal attitude. Have we returned to
the climate of 1993 when the Prime Minister wanted to eliminate
the GST? That was not the way it was put, but let us say he
wanted to eliminate the GST? We saw what happened: he reneged
on his promise. The problem is the same with the promise with
respect to the highway system.
There was nothing on the need for ethics in government. Over twenty
investigations are underway into the administration of this
government. Charges have been laid in some cases, including in
the Prime Minister's riding. This is a serious matter. We
raised these issues.
Initially they denied the existence of such things. We simply
asked that an ethics counsellor or adviser be appointed by the
House and be made accountable to it. What is so dangerous about
someone having the autonomy necessary to reach the most
objective decision possible, certainly, and with the ability to
speak freely?
1725
What we have is a situation in which the Prime Minister chooses
the counsellor, who is accountable to him even when he is
investigating him. This is unacceptable. Naturally, they were
saying today that the leaders of the opposition of the day
supported the appointment.
I would point out two things. First, supporting an appointment
is not enough. In practice we have seen where that has
led the counsellor must be accountable to the House.
Second, in the recent appointments—I am thinking in particular of
the privacy commissioner—the opposition parties were asked for
their views. Our party did not approve of the appointment of
Mr. Radwanski, but he was appointed all the same. That is why
the House must go ahead, not the Prime Minister himself.
Members can imagine the situation if the person being
investigated could select the police officers and the judge and
if the latter were to hand down a verdict before considering
the facts. This would be ridiculous and would diminish the
quality of public life here and throughout Canada.
Another area not addressed was employment insurance. Even
though the government admitted its error during the election
campaign, there was nothing in the throne speech. We are told
that a bill will be introduced Monday; that is all very fine and
well. Apparently it will be the same as the one which was initially
tabled but which never reached second reading in the last
parliament. Despite the assertions of certain Liberals during
the election campaign, this bill was never voted on.
That having been said, the bill is not good enough. We do,
however, support a good number of its proposals, all the more so
as they were ones we made for months on end to the government,
which rejected them.
There is only one clause in this bill that we cannot live with
and that is the one making it legal for the government to
continue to divert funds rightfully belonging to the unemployed,
to entrepreneurs and to employees. That is unacceptable.
Does the government really want to have more democratic,
substantial debates here? Would it agree to split this bill so as
to not uselessly trap opposition parties and to allow us to vote
on what directly affects the services provided to recipients,
those who really do need them? This would be a lot quicker.
True debate is necessary to discuss the final use made of such
funds while people are being taxed for dubious reasons, since
this money is being collected for all sorts of unrelated
purposes. This is immoral.
Another source of concern in the throne speech is the
government's intention to change financial institutions. I think
this specifically refers to banks. We have some problems with
that, particularly in regard to the National Bank, by far the
largest bank in Quebec, which could be owned by a single person.
This is disturbing. We expressed our concern about this some
months ago.
Then there are the services provided to citizens by banking
institutions. There has been a deterioration of services, and
some people cannot have access to these services. I am now
announcing that we will be proposing significant changes in that
regard.
Another area of concern is that of sustainable official language
minority communities. This is a new concept or designation.
Is the government telling us that some communities are
sustainable while others are not? We asked the question today,
but did not get an answer,
yet goodness knows plenty of time is taken in drafting a throne
speech to choose the proper terms. Do not let them try to get us
to buy the idea that this was a poor translation—that would be a
rather serious mistake—because the word sustainable is no
better. Does this mean that some communities are sustainable
while others are not? That does not hold up. Some explanations
are in order.
As for the health field, reference is made to the September
meeting. The Minister of Industry was the premier of
Newfoundland at the time, and all provinces were unanimous in
calling for a return to the 1994 funding level. They were
unanimous, yet this was refused.
Another thing the provinces refused was the creation of a
citizen's council answerable to Ottawa, which would determine how
health care needs to be delivered, whereas there is virtually no
expertise on the other side of this House in this area, except
where aboriginal people are concerned. There are huge
problems with poor service delivery, and where the Canadian
armed forces are concerned, it is a disaster.
1730
They know nothing about this and yet they want to set standards
instead of putting the funding back at its source so that the
provinces may be really in a position to provide the required
services.
There are also concerns about social housing. The terminology
has been changed once again. Now it is called affordable
rental housing. In other words, builders are to be given the
money instead of those in need which is saying that the market will
naturally succeed in responding to the needs of these people. We
can see what is happening in California at the present time with
electricity. I do not believe that the housing market funding can be
handed over blindly without consideration to social
housing needs at a time when there is a huge crisis in the major
centres of Quebec and of Canada.
There is another concern relating to culture. Reference is made
to Canadian culture. There is no recognition of the existence of
the Quebec culture nor the aboriginal cultures. Only the
Canadian culture is referred to.
The existence of national cultures is denied, including that of
Quebec, and the existence of the Quebec nation is denied. Yet
there is such a thing as the Quebec culture, and this is obvious
to anyone spending a little time in Quebec and in the rest of
Canada. One culture is not superior to the other, but there are
different cultures. It would be best if they looked after
Canadian culture and left us to deal with the culture of Quebec.
When I see that the “My name is Joe; I am Canadian” superhero
has emigrated to the United States, I think there is cause for
concern.
What I see in this speech is the extension of the social union,
of the Canadian nation building concept. The only solution for
us is to reach a new agreement, to create a new equal
partnership between Quebec and Canada. Equal partnership means
that both would have equal status. It means that Quebec must be
a sovereign nation under a modern definition of sovereignty,
different from what it was 40, 30 or even 10 years ago.
Countries are different today, and it is this new world that we
want to be part of.
This is particularly important to us with the creation of a free
trade zone covering the three Americas, a concept we have always
supported whereas the Liberals were against it a few years ago.
We want to draw on models that exist in Europe, models with a
common currency, something the Liberals refuse to discuss.
I am not saying that the option I am advocating reflects the
majority opinion in Quebec. I am saying that the kind of
federalism that we see developing in Canada does not reflect the
majority opinion in Quebec either. I am saying that
unfortunately Quebec is divided, that the Quebec issue remains
on the table and that other people in Canada are increasingly
perplexed about Ottawa's role.
We have a duty to think about that rather than to try to crush
the aspirations of a people.
In closing, I would like to move the following amendment to the
amendment:
That the amendment be amended by adding, after the word
“provinces”, the following:
1735
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, before I put a question to my leader, I would like to
thank the constituents of Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour for
re-electing me for a fifth term with a 57% majority. I want them
to know that, during this fifth term, I will continue to serve
them as diligently as before and that my work in the House of
Commons will be as effective as ever.
In fact, my party's whip has congratulated me for the wonderful
work I have done here, in committees and in the House, but as
my leader has said, our ridings should not be neglected, so I
will also be very active at the riding level as I have always
been.
I have a question for my leader.
He mentioned all the provincial areas of jurisdiction the
government is about to infringe upon, based on what was said in
the throne speech. Should the House not reflect on this issue
since all of the provinces want more taxation powers in the
future and less power for the federal government?
Is it not time to address this issue so that all the provinces
have the opportunity to prevent the federal government from
interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction thanks to tax
revenues it is collecting? If, however, taxes were levied only
by the provinces, then the provincial governments would have the
power to negotiate acceptance of some of the so-called national
policies.
I want to ask the hon. member if the time has not come to have a
very serious debate on who should be taxing the residents of the
provinces.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, that is a debate that has been
going on for more than a few decades. In my view, it is one
which is necessary and which must take place in a different
context, one that will have to evolve over the years to come.
However, I believe that there should be fundamental respect for
the jurisdictions for which money is being collected through
taxes.
When, in the case of employment insurance, I see that to date
some $38 billion has been collected while only some 43% of
unemployed workers receive benefits, I can say that the money is
being used for something else. The Minister of Finance would be
the first to agree: this money is being used for purposes other
than those for which it was collected.
That is what is unacceptable and what makes Canadian federalism
dysfunctional. It is dysfunctional because the money is in
Ottawa, but the provinces, which have the needs, must supply the
services. Ottawa takes in much more money when the economy is
strong. It provides services and increases its involvement, but
it pulls out when it can no longer afford to foot the bill and
the provinces are stuck with the existing services. That is
what led to this basic dysfunction in the Canadian federation.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have a couple of questions to ask of the leader of the
Bloc.
One has to do with the funding of health care. He indicated
that the federal government should fund health care and allow the
provinces to implement the health care system in their provinces
as they so choose. In his amendment he has proposed that Quebec
should become independent of Canada, which means that the federal
funding would then obviously cease. Does the member see a
contradiction in that statement?
The other question concerns culture. I acknowledge very freely
that some 25% of Canadians speak French and are of French origin,
while 75% are not.
Many other cultures in Canada are represented. I happen to be
one of those who is neither English nor French. I think that I
have the right to practise my culture with my family and my
relatives, as do all of the Ukrainians in my riding. That is by
far the most populous group.
1740
Should the federal government be involved in supporting the
culture only of the French language in Quebec and in the rest of
the country, or should it get out of that and allow Quebec to
promote its own culture, or should we fund all different cultural
groups equally?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, first of all, there is no
contradiction between asking that the money collected from
taxpayers for health care be given to the provinces, since they
are the ones responsible for delivering these services, and
saying that Quebec wants to become a sovereign country.
We would no longer receive money from the federal government,
but we would no longer be sending Ottawa any money either.
One thing is sure, and you will have the
opportunity to realize it in the years to come, money does not
grow on trees on Parliament Hill. It comes from taxpayers'
pockets.
We send in money that comes back to us. If
we stop receiving money, we will stop sending in money, which
seems very logical to me.
Second, on the issue of culture, this is something that exists
in every country. I am thinking of Ukraine, which became a
country after many years of struggle. The culture in Ukraine is
that of the Ukrainian people, which is perfectly normal. Unless I
am mistaken, I do not think there is a multiculturalism policy in
Ukraine that would give funding for Russian theatre, for example.
If anybody knows of the existence of such a policy, they should
tell me, but I would be surprised.
It is normal for each country to have its own culture, for
Italian to be spoken in Italy and for the development of the
Italian culture to be a priority in that country, without
intolerance toward other cultures being generated. What I see is
the Quebec of tomorrow.
When I look at what is going on in the province of Quebec, I
realize that the only true bilingual city in Canada is Montreal.
An hon. member: Moncton.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: No, I am sorry, it is not Moncton. Legally
maybe, but not in real life.
Unfortunately, despite the heroic efforts of the francophone and
Acadian communities outside Quebec, their assimilation rates are
alarming and very worrisome. In fact, their assimilation rates
are unacceptable.
I think we should condemn the situation and ensure that things
improve. We see the complete opposite in Quebec. For instance,
we have three English universities: McGill, Concordia and
Bishop's. They are doing very well, and it is a plus for our
province. There is nothing like it in the rest of Canada.
We have to be clear on this issue. I see Quebec as an open,
non-racist, non-sexist, non-violent nation, welcoming everyone with
open arms.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. leader of the Bloc
Quebecois for mentioning shipbuilding in his policy.
Could he quickly elaborate as to the blatant arrogance by the
industry minister who before the election made promises and
indications to the people in the industry that he would do
everything he could and then, after the Bombardier deal, turned
around and said nobody in the shipbuilding industry would even
get this consideration?
Could he elaborate a bit more on the arrogance of the industry
minister in his views toward shipbuilding?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, that may be how one moves up
the ladder in Ottawa.
The same thing happened with the health issue, where the former
premier of Newfoundland took a stand contrary to the Liberal
principles he adhered to later on.
The same with shipbuilding. I am sad to say that the Liberals
often talk like New Democrats during an election campaign, but
they do not act like New Democrats once they are in office.
We should think about that.
1745
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad
to take part in this debate and to represent the New Democratic
Party and particularly the constituents of Halifax.
[English]
I want to add my congratulations to all members who were elected
to serve in the 37th parliament. In addition, I extend an
appreciation, and I do so on behalf of all Canadians, to all
candidates who offered to represent people in their communities.
That appreciation needs to extend not only to the candidates who
offered to represent the five parties now in parliament, but also
to the smaller parties, such as the Green Party, the Canada
Action Party and others. We cannot have too much democracy in a
democratic society, and I think we should thank them all.
I also want to congratulate the Speaker for the high honour
bestowed upon him by his peers earlier in the week in being
selected to preside over the Chamber. It is a demanding task to
interpret the rules fairly, to ensure that all members are heard
and to maintain order in a Chamber where there is such a vast
range of views, beliefs and political philosophies.
Mr. Speaker, you will enjoy the support and co-operation of
myself and my colleagues in the NDP caucus as long as you
continue with your already demonstrated practice of firmness,
fairness and allowing us all to have a bit of fun while we get on
with getting the job done.
I want to state the obvious. Parliament is the forum through
which our citizens speak. The Parliament of Canada must
represent the people of Canada in all their diversity. As we
debate the throne speech and as we vote on whether parliament has
confidence in the government, it seems to me that we must
consider an even more profound and disturbing question: Do
Canadian citizens have confidence in parliament to get the job
done?
In the recent federal election it was alarming to recognize that
a mere 58% of Canadians actually bothered to vote. I think those
terrible results of very low voter turnout indicate how many
people really have lost faith in parliament. It indicates how
many people see some of the archaic practices in parliament and
excessive partisanship as not being able to address their
concerns and as being remote from their everyday lives and
somewhat irrelevant to their concerns.
We have to seize the challenge that this presents. Far too
often, amid the pomp and splendour of parliament, there is a
tendency to ignore the dangerous and growing gap between those
who govern and those who are governed. If we ignore the problem
then we place our precious democratic system in peril.
From their parliamentary perches, too many government members
are asking themselves what could possibly be wrong with an
electoral system that elected a Liberal majority government. Let
me say that narrow partisanship will not heal democracy. It is
not leadership. As parliamentarians we know that it is essential
to represent citizens in every community in every corner of
Canada.
As members of parliament we have different political
philosophies, but together, at the end of the day, we share the
responsibility to help restore the faith that Canadians have in
the democratic process and in parliament's ability to get on with
addressing their concerns.
1750
It seems to me the project deserves more than the vague
reference it received in yesterday's throne speech, a bare
mention, conjuring up the image that parliamentary reform is to
consist of not much more than a little technological tinkering on
the corners of our desks when it comes to voting. Radical
parliamentary and electoral reform are imperative if we are to
revitalize democracy within these walls and throughout our
nation.
We share as well an obligation to ensure that Canadian democracy
is not threatened by external factors. Canadians are justly
proud of our reputation as responsible, compassionate members of
the world community. The 21st century provides an unprecedented
opportunity for us to work in partnership with other progressive
forces to promote peace, human rights, social justice and genuine
economic progress around the world.
It is therefore disappointing in the extreme that the throne
speech failed to reject unequivocally the national missile
defence system, the madness that threatens to reignite the
nuclear arms race and to introduce dangerous instability into
today's world.
The throne speech regrettably was also silent on other important
international issues. In trade agreements the government has
uncritically embraced the corporate model of globalization. In
the throne speech and in the Prime Minister's response to my
questions earlier today, it remains true that the government
ignores the legitimate concern of Canadians that trade deals
protect core labour standards, basic human rights and our
cultural diversity; protect our social programs, particularly the
universality of our health care system; protect our natural
resources and our primary producers; and protect our environment,
including the most life sustaining provisions of all, clean air
and safe water.
With the government these critical concerns are casually
dismissed as impediments to the corporate goal of unfettered
trade. The government is virtually bargaining away our ability
to choose and chart our own future as a sovereign nation. It
threatens the very democracy that is so prized by Canadians.
In opposition the Liberals recognized, or at least they
professed to recognize, that unless the flaws in the free trade
deal were fixed the trade agreement remained unacceptable to
Canadians and therefore should not be ratified. However, once in
government, the Liberals reneged on their promise not to ratify
the flawed free trade agreement. In fact, they compounded the
problem by entrenching those same flaws in the broader NAFTA.
Thanks to NAFTA, we have not only moved away from the polluter
pay principle in protecting our environment, our most precious
resource, but we are actually facing the indignity of having to
pay the polluters. Thanks to NAFTA, Canada is forced to permit
the use of MMT, a dangerous neurotoxin banned in many other
countries. To add insult to injury, for having dared to protest,
Canada is now required to hand over $20 million to Ethyl
Corporation, the American company which supplies that neurotoxin.
Sadly, last week at Davos, Switzerland, Canada's industry
minister killed the last hope that the federal government would
wake up to the growing concerns held by Canadians about the
Liberal-Tory globalization model. I have to say that the new
industry minister's fawning over the Mulroney free trade deal
rivals the Irish Eyes Are Smiling embarrassment in the
Ronald Reagan era.
1755
Thanks to NAFTA, Canadians are struggling to heat their homes
this winter because a U.S. energy crisis will not allow us to
sell our fuel to one another at reasonable prices.
Farmers and farm families cannot get the support they need to
survive in times of crisis, while U.S. and European agricultural
competitors are massively subsidized by their national
treasuries.
What critical analysis of and what solutions to these problems
does the government offer in the throne speech? Absolutely none.
Nothing. Not one word. Not even an acknowledgement that these
problems exist.
I would like to believe that the throne speech of platitudes and
warm fuzzies that we heard yesterday will translate into genuine
progress and concrete solutions for our citizens: for our
aboriginal peoples, too long shut out; for persons with
disabilities, too long ignored; for visible minorities, too often
sidelined; for women who still suffer discrimination in many ugly
forms; and for those trapped in poverty and those living without
adequate shelter or, worse still, living on the streets.
Unfortunately yesterday's throne speech was devoid of solid
initiatives, like a national housing strategy to help the quarter
of a million Canadians who are living in substandard housing or
who have no roof over their heads.
Where was the concrete action to introduce the promised
legislation to ban bulk water exports? Where was the action to
protect our endangered species or to meet our climate change
commitments? Where were the national pharmacare and home care
programs, which are needed to modernize Canada's health care
system and help people deal with the rising costs of medical
care? Where was the commitment to a national child care program,
promised in 1993 and still not delivered?
Perhaps most important, where was the promise to introduce a
budget that would set out clearly and concretely what social,
environmental and infrastructure investments the government is
actually prepared to make in the years ahead and throughout its
mandate?
What choices will the government make, especially with the
economic storm clouds gathering on the horizon? Will it be the
corporations or the citizens of Canada whose interests will guide
public policy choices through the third mandate of the
government? Will it be the elimination of the surtax on incomes
over $100,000 or the commitment to eliminate child poverty? Will
the government delay in another tax break on capital gains
targeted to those in the $250,000 plus bracket or in another
barrier to post-secondary education and more student debt?
There are many more questions that my colleagues and I will have
in the days ahead. From the point of view of my constituents in
Halifax and those in the Atlantic region, I have many other
questions that go completely ignored in the throne speech.
My colleague from Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore
has mentioned one of them. Where is the commitment to the
national shipbuilding strategy? After eight years of denying
that there was a need for any strategy, we finally had some
acknowledgement on the eve of this election that it was past time
for the Liberal government to introduce such a strategy. Then we
saw the industry minister backpedalling completely from it. It
seems to me he has some questions to answer about whether in fact
the real impediment is not the free trade deal that he is now
praising from the heights of Switzerland.
Where is any recognition of and any commitment from the
government to deal with the problem posed by an unfair
equalization formula, one that makes it impossible for
governments in have not provinces to actually make progress
because of the excessive clawback of any resources from, for
example, the offshore development that now may give an
opportunity to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland?
1800
Democracy in Canada is at a crossroads. The choices made by the
government and what we achieve in this parliamentary session will
determine where we go from here. It is significant that as we
launch this 37th parliament we have an opportunity to rethink the
very nature of our country's democracy, which is in peril because
of the government's approach to free trade.
With the free trade of the Americas summit happening in Quebec
in April, there is a perfect opportunity for Canada to see the
fact of this happening here in our midst as an occasion for
Canadians to begin to be heard on the fundamental concerns about
the threat to democracy because of this uncritical embracing of a
corporate model for globalization.
If we want to restore the faith of Canadians in our public
institutions, we must reform those institutions. Most important,
we must deal concretely and sincerely with the everyday concerns,
the bread and butter issues that plague our citizens, together
with the myriad of issues this 37th parliament must tackle. If
we can restore Canadians' belief in capability and resolve of
their public institutions to get the job done, I believe it would
be possible to declare the 37th parliament a success.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I take
this opportunity to make some comments about some points that I
would like to help the hon. member with and on which I disagree
with her position.
We all know that the member for Halifax is a very learned and
solid contributor to the House of Commons, but with respect to
the free trade initiative we have to reflect on the overall
impact it has had on Canada. Our trade with the Americans was
around $90 billion in 1998. Now our trade with them is over $320
billion each and every year. That is the single largest
instrument of the growth we have had in our economy. To some,
globalization is a problem, but we know Canada can win on a trade
based regime. We can compete with the world and actually grow our
economy.
With respect to the MMT issue, the member is absolutely right.
There was enough scientific capacity to say that MMT could have a
negative effect on human health. All the Government of Canada
had to do was to ban that substance as a toxin under schedule 1
of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, a very pioneering
act brought forward by guess who? The Progressive Conservative
Party. Had the government banned it as a schedule 1 toxin as
opposed to making it a trade issue, it would not have been
challenged under NAFTA. To hold NAFTA responsible for the
Liberals' mismanagement of MMT as an environmental cause is
wrong. Clearly under NAFTA and under FTA Canadians have the
right to set our own labour, cultural and environmental
standards.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will have
many occasions to debate these issues over the next while.
In general it is not the view of the New Democratic Party, nor
did I express it today, that globalization per se is a problem.
The problem is the approach to globalization and specifically the
nature of the trade agreement into which the government has
entered and into which it now seems absolutely intent to propel
us yet again with the free trade area of the Americas agreement.
1805
The problem is that the government has lost sight, as the
Mulroney government did, of the fact that trade ought to be the
servant of the people, just as the economy ought to be the
servant of the people, not the master. Trade is not the end
goal. Trade is a means, and a very important means, to develop
our economy and to potentially improve life for Canadians.
However, when we see a kind of uncritical embracing of the
corporate model, we literally see an erosion of the right of
citizens to have a say in the future of their country.
It is important that we debate these things. That is why it is
so astounding that in the throne speech, instead of acknowledging
that there is a growing crescendo of concern among citizens, not
just in Canada but in many parts of the world, about the flawed
and failed corporatist model, we get nothing but a once over
glossy reference to the wonders of free trade that the government
has brought to Canadians.
Let us be a little more critical and a little more discerning.
Let us be a little more willing to look at what flaws have now
proven to be a problem and let us correct them before we barge
ahead at the upcoming summit in Quebec, which will lock us and
other vulnerable citizens in other parts of the world even
further into trade deals that are bad for citizens and designed
mainly to address the needs and greed of corporate entities.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the hon. member for Halifax for her
very thoughtful comments in response to the throne speech. She
covered the whole gamut of what was lacking in the throne speech
and what, from the perspective of New Democrats, we need to be
putting forward.
I agree with the hon. member when she says that what this
parliament and the Government of Canada need to do is address the
bread and butter issues facing Canadians. She laid that out very
well.
I would like the hon. member to comment on one aspect of the
throne speech, which is that we somehow will have a new national
project to address child poverty. Could the hon. member comment
on this based on the performance we have seen from the government
over the last three and a half years? I am sure she remembers
the time 11 years ago when the Hon. Ed Broadbent put forward a
resolution in the House of Commons to eliminate child poverty.
What happened to that national project? Why is the Liberal
government only talking about it today as though somehow this
will be addressed? The record on this issue is important. I
would like the hon. member to give us her thoughts on the matter.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the
question of what happened to the commitment to eliminate child
poverty in this country, a commitment made by all
parliamentarians in this Chamber 12 years ago, is exactly what
we fear go will happen to the “commitment” to eliminate
child poverty, which is yet again in the throne speech. It is so
totally lacking in any kind of comprehensive strategy precisely
because it is a statement of intentions without any facts or
figures. There are no hard dollars and no specific programs.
The first event the New Democratic Party launched in the last
election campaign was an event to address the issue of child
poverty. Ever since then I have worn on my lapel a pin given to
me by the anti-poverty workers, specifically workers in the field
of child care and child development. It is a pin that reads
“Children First”.
If the government really meant what is stated in the throne
speech and what is stated by the Prime Minister this afternoon
when he talks about the head start program, we would not be
pretending that this is something new that has been discovered.
With all due respect to the member for Don Valley West, I applaud
the fact that he has spoken to the importance of the head start
and early childhood development programs, but I had the sense
that the Prime Minister was Rip Van Winkle waking up from a long
sleep this afternoon when he talked about the head start program
being something new. I was working in the head start movement in
1964.
1810
For 40 years it has been proven that if one is serious about
giving children the best possible start in life then one has to
eliminate the poverty that exists in families and in communities.
Giving children a head start is not just a slogan. If we are
serious about eliminating poverty then we must make sure that
they have adequate nutrition. That means decent incomes. We
must make sure they have decent housing so that when they go to
school they can actually learn instead of suffer from the fact
that they have not been able to sleep because they are too cold
or they are living in crowded conditions or, worse still, on the
street.
The short answer is that this slogan has still not been
translated into the kind of concrete initiatives needed to get
the job of eliminating poverty done. That is why we call for a
budget. That is why we call for the allocation of dollars, so
that this slogan can be translated into something real in terms
of giving kids the best possible start in life.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. By unanimous consent we are seeking that the hours of
debate be extended to encapsulate the spirit of the agreement by
the House leaders that all leaders speak on this day in the
Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I have consulted with the other House leaders and I believe you
would find unanimous consent to extend the hours for that purpose
only.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, does this mean that it will be
extended only to the extent of giving him the allotted time of 20
minutes?
The Deputy Speaker: My understanding is that there would
be 20 minutes for the speech and 10 minutes for questions and
comments. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
thank you very much not only for the opportunity to speak but for
the agreement to extend the hours if by chance I should be on my
feet longer than 20 minutes.
I begin by congratulating the Speaker and the candidates for
speakership. Indeed I congratulate all members who were elected
and, as the leader of the New Democratic Party just did, all who
had the courage to stand for office in the election of November
27, 2000. I also extend my congratulations to the mover and the
seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech From the Throne.
You will understand, Mr. Speaker, if I extend a particular
thanks to the voters of the constituency of Calgary Centre. It
is a diverse, dynamic and positive community. It is a community
that is committed to the country and is able to play a leading
role in shaping the future of Canada. I look forward to working
with the constituents of Calgary Centre to ensure that the voice
of western Canada is heard in very positive and constructive ways
on the floor of the House in shaping national decisions.
The throne speech offers no vision for the future of the
country. That is not surprising because through the election
campaign the Liberals offered no vision of the future of the
country. They drifted through the campaign as they have drifted
through the last seven years. They were elected by default.
I say to my colleagues on this side of the House that was as
much our fault as it was theirs, but it is important to underline
that the government has no positive mandate from the people of
Canada. It was elected by accident, elected by default. We on
this side of the House will ensure that we hold it to account on
the actions that it undertakes.
[Translation]
I believe the greatest danger is that the throne speech is
utterly silent on the economic challenges facing the working
people of Canada. As industries lay off employees across our
country and other nations change their policies to fight an
economic slowdown, the government's only initiative is to delay
until the fall a budget that should have been brought down in
February.
The major initiatives in the throne speech on children and
aboriginals are an indication of the guilt this government feels
for ignoring these issues for seven years.
1815
[English]
There are several issues that need to be addressed in the House.
I want to break with tradition in the throne speech debate and
focus my remarks exclusively on how we can reform the House of
Commons and restore accountability to democracy in Canada.
I believe there is a general willingness in the House, in all
five parties, to break a tradition that gives governments too
much power and the elected representatives of the people far too
little power. The leader of the New Democratic Party has just
spoken of that.
Recently the Liberal members for St. Paul's and Winnipeg South
wrote an article on this issue. They underlined some of the
alarming developments in our country, one being the low voter
turnout, which dropped more than 5% in the November 27 election.
The article focused on parliamentary reform, such as broadening
the role of individual members, whether by more free votes, more
resources to the parliamentary library or more influence on
committees. That is an important issue on which I believe a lot
of progress can be made if we work together in the Chamber.
The House leader of the Canadian Alliance has put forward some
very interesting proposals in that vein. My party and I could
support many of those proposals. Indeed, many of them we put
forward ourselves in one way or another.
Speaking entirely on a personal basis, I would like to look at
changes that give private members from all parties an initiating
role in drafting public legislation. I support this and will
work actively with my colleagues to achieve more power for
individual members of parliament. I call that reform by
empowerment. However, the change that would be even more
important would be reform by accountability.
[Translation]
I have had the privilege of serving in eight parliaments, in
government and in opposition. When it comes to parliamentary
reform, I believe there is an even more important and
urgent goal. That goal is to restore to the House of Commons
the means to effectively control the spending authority of the
government, through unrestricted examination and control of
estimates.
That is a power the House of Commons used to have and gave
away, for reasons that no doubt seemed compelling at the time.
That control of the estimates cannot be brought back in the
forms that worked in the past, but the principle can, and
should, be restored. The power to deny the government the
authority to spend is the best means to hold that government
accountable to parliament.
[English]
I will come back to some specific proposals that would have that
effect, but I want to discuss briefly another way to hold the
government accountable; that is, to ensure that the watchdogs
established to monitor government behaviour report directly to
parliament, not to the cabinet.
The place to start is with the 1993 Liberal Party red book
promise to have the ethics counsellor report directly to the
House of Commons. That promise should be kept. It should be
retroactive to 1993 so that we can examine decisions taken since
that time. The terms of reference should be expanded to include
representations to crown corporations and other activities where
suspicious contacts may occur.
We need to consider what other instruments are required to
ensure that government is as transparent as possible, because a
conditioned precedent to holding a government to account is to
know what it is doing. That means there must be more respect for
the work, the reports and the mandate of the privacy commissioner
and the information commissioner.
We should also look at innovations in other jurisdictions.
Thanks in part to the new member for Vancouver Quadra, British
Columbia has a very interesting procedure that we should look at.
1820
It is a procedure that establishes a special prosecutor for
cases specifically involving the investigation and prosecution of
crimes involving persons of particular influence, including
cabinet ministers, senior public officials and police officers or
persons in close relationship to them.
There would be other examples in other jurisdictions. We need
instruments to hold any government, whatever its partisan stripe,
to account. We need to look at ways in which that could be done.
I will come back to accountability. The real dilemma in
societies that are both modern and democratic is to combine
efficiency in government with real accountability. In the past
30 years most societies have made a choice. We have chosen
efficiency over accountability.
We did that in Canada in the 1960s and the 1970s. We changed
that for what seemed at the time to be very good reasons. The
old system of committee of the whole House and supply made it
difficult for governments to plan. It made it difficult for
governments to respond to urgent questions. There is no doubt
that it was inefficient. We made a change in the name of
efficiency.
No one in the House would question that we need governments that
are both willing and able to act. That requirement is more
dominant now than ever before in the complex and fast changing
world of today.
This is a time when the unthinkable happens regularly. Human
life can now be cloned. Terrorists with package bombs are mobile
and lethal. Traditional farm or industrial emissions can
aggregate to poison water, air or streams. Governments have to
be able to act.
In a democracy, if democracy means anything at all, governments
must also be held to account. We have lost the capacity to hold
governments to account in the House of Commons. We are letting
the country down. We have an obligation in this House to make
changes in the next few years to restore that power to
parliament.
Traditionally, the primary role of the House of Commons has been
the granting or withholding of supply to the government of the
day.
It is more than 30 years now since the House of Commons, in an
attempt to improve consideration of supply, changed the rules and
began to send the annual spending estimates of government not to
a committee of the whole where parliament and the world could
see, but to committee with time limits. That experiment has been
a complete failure on every count. Year after year effective
parliamentary authority over government spending has been allowed
to lapse.
I took a look at some of the larger departmental estimates that
were considered in committee last year. The Standing Committee
on Defence and Veterans Affairs spent a grand total of one hour
and 30 minutes on the estimates of the Department of National
Defence and one hour and 35 minutes, a little bit longer, on the
estimates of veterans affairs. The total time on the estimates
of the Department of Finance last year was one hour and 20
minutes. The total time on the Department of Health was less
than 90 minutes.
That is a system that does not work. In a parliament that is
founded on the idea that we control the government, that is an
indication of abject and complete failure. We have an obligation
to try to make that change.
Why has the system failed? It has failed because in that old
system, when we met in committee of the whole here on the floor
of this House—and the Prime Minister and some of the rest of us
are old enough to remember that—there was a tension and there
was a profile to the examination and the analysis of government
estimates.
In committees now there is no profile and no tension, and so
there is no attention to holding a government to account. The
time limits that exist now and the cycle of questions make it
virtually impossible for any member of parliament, in government
or in opposition, to sustain questioning over a period of time.
Under the old system, a member of parliament could literally
continue asking questions as long as he or she stood on his or
her feet in the House of Commons. Indeed, if someone happened to
be speaking at the time the House adjourned, he or she would
continue speaking in the morning.
1825
Was that subject to abuse? Of course it was. However, it also
ensured that the government was held to account. It ensured
there was no way simply by resorting to a schedule that a
government could get away from that kind of scrutiny.
What happened then? Ministers paid attention to the House of
Commons. They also paid attention to their own departments.
Ministers now are sort of chairmen of the board of their
department. They do not get involved with the difficult details
of running a government.
The Minister of Human Resources last year got into terrible
difficulty because she did not know her department. Had she been
forced to come to committee of the whole and defend the
estimates, as ministers before her have been forced to do, she
would have known and we would have known. There would have been
an opportunity for us to avoid some of the problems and some of
the terrible waste that occurred because our system has gone
wrong.
Not only would that be good for accountability, it would be good
in terms of fiscal responsibility. It would save money. It
would mean there would be much less waste. It would also change
the relationship between elected members and public servants whom
the Prime Minister positively and correctly applauded and
encouraged today.
Public servants in that old system knew they had to be ready for
tough scrutiny. They had no option but to respect a parliament
that could hold up virtually forever their spending plans. That
has now gone in this committee system. Nobody takes seriously
the fundamental responsibility of the House of Commons to control
the spending of the government of the day. That is something we
simply have to change.
What do we do about it? One option I believe would be to
restore a committee of the whole House for the consideration of a
limited number of departments, but for an unlimited period of
time. It could take two departments each year and give it to the
official opposition decide which two. We could establish a rule
that the choice would not be made until the day before the debate
began so everybody would have to prepare for coming into the
place and asking questions without any kind of fetter. That is
one way in which we could restore the capacity of the House of
Commons to control the government.
Another option is to take estimates away from the standing
committee and put them into a new kind of chamber, a debating
chamber, a committee of the whole House acting as a committee of
supply that could meet simultaneously with the House as a whole.
It would meet in parallel with the House. It should be televised
so the questions which are asked and answers that are given are
seen by the public at large.
Ministers would answer to the committee in a freewheeling
process of question and answer without the artificial time
restraints that are now in place. Ministers would have to know
about their departments because they would not be able to have
officials answer for them.
Those are some options. There may well be others in the
imagination of the House and by examples that are available to us
in other jurisdictions.
We all recognize that the system as it exists now does not work.
We have just come back. We can spend our time trying to breathe
life into a system that does not work. We can pretend it is
parliamentary reform if we have the opportunity to move more
motions or take a more independent role. This is not about the
independence or the participation of individual members,
important as that is. This is about making any government
accountable to parliament. That is why parliament was
established. We have let that power be lost and we must regain
it.
I consider that issue important enough that instead of dealing
with other issues, which I will pursue and my colleagues will
pursue in the days to come, I want to focus attention now on our
most fundamental responsibility, which is to make this
institution viable by changing it. We must ensure that we
restore and respect the fundamental purpose for which we were all
elected, which was not only to represent our constituents but to
ensure that the people of this democracy of Canada would have
some means on a day to day, year to year basis to control the
government that affects so much of their lives.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the right. hon.
leader of the Conservative Party if he remembers a few things
that occurred some years ago when the Conservatives were in
power. He is referring to accountability to this parliament.
1830
In 1988, Mr. Speaker, the year I believe when you were first
elected to the House of Commons, parliament was recalled, sat,
never tabled estimates, never was granted supply, adjourned,
prorogued the session and then called for a Governor General's
warrant without having asked this parliament for a cent.
That can hardly be reconciled with reforming parliament. That
is something that was so retrograde that it went against every
democratic principle. It was illegal a hundred years ago in the
United Kingdom. That was done by former Prime Minister Mulroney
at the time, and the right hon. member across was a member of his
cabinet. They presumably approved the use of a Governor
General's warrant when parliament had previously sat. That is
what he and the right hon. member across did with his cabinet
colleagues in 1988.
He may wish us to forget that but some of us have long memories.
Does he recall I asked Dr. Harvie Andre, who was House leader at
the time, a question about the estimates? The estimates had been
tabled and not one minister appeared before a parliamentary
committee to defend them. That was the Conservative Party of
which he was a member. Why does the right hon. member fail to
remember all of these things? Why does he pretend all of a
sudden to be an advocate for parliamentary reform and
accountability for this great institution? I could go on about
several more like that.
The few examples of parliamentary reform that we have were
co-authored by the hon. Jim McGrath. The right hon. member said
parliament was not working at all. What would Jim McGrath think
of a speech like that? We made some of those reforms. It was a
Conservative who chaired the committee to have these done.
Mr. Peter MacKay: You repealed the McGrath report.
Hon. Don Boudria: The hon. member from the back row just
alleged that we repealed some of the McGrath committee report.
As far as I know the only reform that was repealed was the one to
make committees larger than seven members. We did it because
there was a five party condition in the House. Had we not done
that the Conservative Party would not have had a seat on any
committee.
I know something about it because in 1997 I authored that
initiative to give his party representation on committees. If
the right hon. member does not believe it perhaps he could talk
to his House leader who knows a lot about that issue. However, I
do not know what kind of terms they are on.
Today we could shrink the size of that committee back to what
Mr. McGrath said. Who would stop us from doing that? What party
would be against doing that if we proposed it right now? I will
let members guess what party would lose out on that point.
I listened attentively to the right hon. member's speech. I had
high respect for him when he was minister of foreign affairs. He
did great things for the country and I acknowledge that. I
listened to many of his speeches. I recognize what he did as a
minister of national unity some years ago. I will agree that he
did a good job then too. However, today he stood and recited
some of these platitudes. The first thing I would do is fire the
speech writer.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to
respond in kind but I would imagine that I remember more of what
the hon. member said in opposition than he does. If we want to
get into that kind of exchange, we can do that.
If I may say so, his response indicates exactly what is wrong
with the House. If there is a question about which we should not
be partisan, it is the question of how we make the House work
more effectively.
Was I responsible for actions which did not advance
accountability in the House? Yes, I was. Did the House of
Commons deliberately decide that we would move away from the
committee of the whole consideration of estimates? Yes, we did.
1835
Were we right? No, we were not. We were wrong. We should
recognize that we collectively were wrong. Members of several
parties took that decision because we recognized that the old
rules were not allowing us to adjust to a new reality.
I am asking the House to recognize now that the new rules we put
in place also do not work. I can dig up as much information
about the past as anyone in the House. I have a longer memory. I
have the capacity to make the point in both languages. That is
not the purpose of the House of Commons.
In fact, the reason we are in such low repute is that the people
of the country look at parliament and they see us casting arrows
at one another, putting partisan interest ahead of national
interest. That is not what we are here to do.
We are here to make parliament work. We are here to make
democracy work. If we are honest at all with one another, we
know that it is not working as well as it should. Perhaps the
proposals I have put forward today are not adequate. If they are
not adequate, let us bring forth better proposals. Let us not
lose the chance to change parliament, to hold the government more
accountable, and to give more power to individual members of
parliament.
I hope that this was a temporary lapse, that the highly
responsible minister, the leader of the government in the House,
thought he was a rat packer again. He got caught in a time warp
and slipped back to his old behaviour. I would like to believe
that there is a real commitment to reform among the members of
the Liberal Party. I know that there is a commitment among many
of their backbenchers. I hope it is reflected in the government
benches too.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I only have one question. While I was listening to the
member's speech I was thinking that what drove me out of his
party and into the then Reform Party, now the Canadian Alliance,
was the lack of accountability by parliament for the finances of
the country.
There is no doubt about the fact that if the government that we
have now, and the government of which the member was a member
previous to that for nine years, would have exercised restraint,
we would not have even today a gross debt of over $600 billion.
He has put his finger on it. It took him some 10 years longer to
find out than those of us who are in this section of the
opposition.
I honour and respect now what he has just said. What I would
like to know is how do we know for sure that on his road to
Damascus his conversion is real.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will not speak about
the consistency between what people say on the way to an election
and what they do when they get to the House. There has been
recent evidence very close to the member for Elk Island about how
quickly positions can change. I do not want to get into that. I
will not argue who was where first. The important thing he said
is that he agrees with my analysis as to what is wrong here.
Judging from the reforms proposed by his House leader, his party
believes that there are changes that have to be made. So do we.
Certainly, if I may speak on this occasion for her, so do members
of the New Democratic Party.
[Translation]
I think we could include the members of the Bloc Quebecois.
Everyone agrees, and some members of the governing party would
also like to see major changes to the standing orders of the
House. We would like to see parliament's ability to control the
government restored. That is the challenge we face.
On this we agree. On other topics, we do not. That is the
nature of parliament and democracy, but if we wish to protect
and enhance democracy in Canada and the reputation of
parliament, we must consider changes to the standing orders of
the House.
[English]
I welcome the support of the hon. member on this issue. I know
it is only on this issue.
I believe we have work to do here. I hope that in the session
that begins this week we will accept that responsibility and
change this institution to restore and serve democracy.
The Deputy Speaker: In closing, let me thank all members
of the House for their collaboration on this being a leaders'
day. I might add that it is great to be back in the Chair.
It being 6.40 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.40 p.m.)